Markus FERBER

Policy topics Markus FERBER is active on

What Markus FERBER has said (45)

• 2026-07-15 “(15:34:57 - 15:36:42): Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Labouroux. Pleasure having you here before the summer break. I have two short questions. You know, and you spoke about it, the competitiveness report the commission is going to publish on Friday. I looked into your responses to the questionnaire the commission brought forward in springtime, and I found a lot of no opinions. So, SRB has no opinion on a lot of issues. It was very interesting. On the other hand, the commission competitiveness communication will likely set out a considerably more concrete resolution agenda than the SRB itself proposed, aligning MREL with the international TLAC standards, streamlining resolution planning cycles, and reforming the prior permission regime for MREL buybacks. So how does the SRB see these elements and what will be the contributions of the SRB more than what we have had a chance to read in your comments? And the second question is, in one of your responses, the SRB stated that the Single Resolution Fund available means of €81,000,000,000 would be insufficient to provide market confidence in the failure of a global systematically important bank. Therefore, you call for a European solution guaranteeing liquidity after resolution without naming the funding source while ruling out central bank emergency liquidity assistance and the top government guarantees on the grounds that such support cannot be committed in advance. Any such arrangement will still have to respect the treaty's own limits on EU budgetary commitments and spending authorizations. So given those treaty constraints, what concrete legal architecture does the SRB envisage for delivering this ex ante liquidity guarantee? Thank you very much.”
  European Banking Union
• 2026-07-02 “(11:09:03 - 11:11:07): So new supervision supervisory structures, they're being set up, but that doesn't bring any benefit. And it's the opposite of what you have at the top of the heading of the package. Direct ESMA supervision of big asset managers for U SITs, where you have €50,000,000,000 for AFIs and extra empowerment for medium sized asset managers. Well, these investment funds are basically active nationally. It might be big, and I think local national supervision will be better. If you have a new level, you just create new red tape, new cost, and no better integration. Thirdly, when it comes to asset managers, this is based on the SA criteria. This specifically for high asset management and stress tests. But I don't think this leads to any benefit. And, again, this goes away with goes against, competitiveness. When it comes to ancillary activities and MiFID, well, we know what that says. So if you look at the situation in the EU, I want to we could go along this path, but I think it's a very risky path to take to delete these activity exemptions. We do need to look at volatility, reduce it, and I think this would be extremely risky if we deleted this. On the finality regulation, very briefly, what's important here is we need technology to look at securities, for tokenization, for central banks, and this has to be in line with the CSDR. I'm sure we can agree with that. And if that, then the if so, then the EPP will support it. Thank you.”
  Financial regulation
• 2026-07-02 “(11:03:23 - 11:08:44): Thank you very much indeed, my chair colleagues. Looking at this whole package, you would know that is a complicated dossier. You can get lost in the details. So I just like to speak to the thread running through the whole thing. When it comes to all the provisions here, the idea is the same. Are we pushing market integration? Are we simplifying procedures? Are we adding levels? Are we taking levels away? That's the measure I measured everything by. And commission, they actually, I think, went in the right direction, and I'm building on what their proposal was and trying to look at more even more detail. I think what's clear is when it comes to integration is article 500 of the, regulation. So you can't have overlapping national supervision as well. So you need to look at technical improperability. Article 21 a of the CSR, these are brought in as integrated modules. So if you've registered once, then you've done it. And supervision. Commission is looking at direct supervision for significant CCPs and CSDs, and leaves everything else for national supervision. I think that's enough. When it comes to these significant thresholds, well, this will just lead to fragmentation. And obviously, we want to push for market integration. In my proposal, I would say that all CCPs and all CSDs have to be supervised European level. So this would mean, centralization, but it's not actually that, in fact. For CCPs and CSDs, we are talking about European entities that are cross border, and therefore, they should be supervised centrally. And then there are sectors with lots of, local, routes, crypto asset service providers, we're around 200. Some of them are very small. I think we could go for proportionality there, and that's what I put in my draft. Behind the commission's proposal, I think the logic is quite simple, simplification. But that means that once you've been supervised, you should only pay once. What I say is that you should look at proportionate fees and make sure there is no double taxation by ESMA and the national supervisor supervisory authority for the same activity. So you should have an overview as to the annual fuse that would help market, stakeholders. I think the main problem with the, proposal in the commission is the, competitive mandate for ESMA. Without this specific competitiveness module, well, I would say we need to have this target in using the British FCA, and that's in article 1 of the ESMA regulation. That needs to be operationalized through assessments in the RTS and ITS processes and through separate chapter in the annual report. For governance, ESMA is the authority and needs to be given the room for maneuver. He's a strong executive board with 5 independent members When it comes to vetoes for a national subdivision, that will put a stop to national super specificities. When it comes to different technologies that well, this can work in the market. Well, if you have artificial upper thresholds, we'll put a stop to this. So we want to move away from that. When it comes to the correct order thresholds, we're looking at billion euros and 500,000,000 for smaller companies. This is going to be a clear way path given when it comes to CSDR, how we can move between the 2. So when it comes to tokenization of financial tool, this might be a way forward, but we can do that as if it was sustainable framework. I think this logic, I. Getting away from overlapping, I think is the yardstick for the other texts. So maybe other reporters can say something on this as well. This is the the logic behind the master regulation directive. I think I can agree with that aim, but let me just go through a few points. New ESMA, structure with new impairments and when it comes to fines”
  Financial regulation
• 2026-06-23 “(15:31:06 – 15:31:43): Yeah. Thank you very much. The European banking authority is is required to submit a report on the international FRTP implementation by the July 10. And on the July 15, the commission will come up with its communication on the competitiveness of the banking sector. And I'm wondering how this interaction of both can be safeguarded if Eva comes to conclusion that there's not yet a level playing field. And, how will the commission react on that, as we have this timely narrow approach between, both things? Thank you very much.”
  Financial regulation
• 2026-06-23 “(15:17:03 – 15:18:20): Yeah. Thank you very much. And, before I begin with my question, let me briefly say on behalf of the EPP group and on behalf of our shuttle rapporteur that we welcome the fact that the commission is actively addressing the issue of an uneven application of the Basel III market risk rules. And the commission had already delayed the FRTB application twice before resorting to this delegated act and in doing so, exhausted every postponement tool available to it under the capital requirements regulation. The United States re proposed its own Basel III implementation in March of this year without specifying a start date, which has been said, and its proposal shows material structural departures from the Basel framework. This will grant US banks capital benefits that the Basel framework does not recognize. Had the delegated aid act not been adopted, EU banks with significant trading books would have faced stricter market risk capital requirements than The US and UK competitors from next January. So can the commission provide a concrete estimate of the additional capital burden EU banks would have absorbed relative to The US and UK peers absent this intervention? Or to put it simply, how high are the costs of inaction here? Thank you very much.”
  Financial regulation
• 2026-06-22 “Yes, thank you very much. And thank you very much for this report on your successes. The only dark cloud on that horizon is that in November 2020, we were looking forward to a reform of the ESM treaty, where the ESM would be the backstop for the Single Resolution fund. However, that hasn't been ratified by one member state. The Commission has called for the ESM to be brought within the EU legal framework. I was interested to hear if there's been any progress on that front. Then the ESM and Eiopa agreed on a joint discussion paper which talked about how to deal with natural catastrophes. This would fill a insurance gap equivalent to 75% on the basis of historical data. And there's talk of a risk pool of 10 to €15 billion. Now. It has been suggested that this could be linked to the ESM. But why on earth is the ESM dealing with subjects like this? Why are you interested in extending your mandate in that manner?”
  European Banking Union
• 2026-06-22 “Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to congratulate you on the decision to raise interest rates on the 11th of June. I think that was the right signal. But I am also concerned when I look at the growth forecast for this year, you're talking about 0.8%. And then you've also got the inflation forecasts where you've made a correction upwards. So you've got stagnation for the economy and inflation. On monetary Policy. So that's basically stagflation. Have you got the necessary instruments to fight stagflation? The second question I'm worried about is that unlike in 2022, the starting point in the eurozone is much tighter than it was. We've got structural deficits in the member states, which are bigger than they were. Government debt is costing a lot of money. The member state I know best is now paying more than 3% for ten year government bonds. And those are the cheapest rates in the EU when it comes to the transmission protection instrument. That has an important role in ensuring that monetary policy transmission is ensured. But the existence of this instrument could be a kind of a measure that hollows out the market discipline of the member states. Can we ensure that the TPP is not considered to be a last resort money printing machine? If we've got higher and higher levels of government debt and the issue of fiscal dominance coming to the fore. Thank you.”
  ECB monetary policy
• 2026-06-15 “34:11 – 17:36:31): Thank you very much, president, commissioner, colleagues. Economic independence doesn't start with, you know, a struggle against Washington or Beijing. No. It starts here at home. It starts in the European single market. For over 30 years now, we've been talking about the 4 basic freedoms. But the commission said recently, there's actually the terrible 10. We could almost say the terrible 100 at a push. This is something that comes up in my constituency pretty regularly. So single market needs to be really made smooth more smooth. We have currently division in terms of rules on services. We have fragmentation. We have prices that are higher in 1 country than in another. This affects consumers. And apparently, these obstacles in our single market means 44% it's equivalent to 40% tariff on goods and 10% in services. That's what it amounts to. So in other words, it's actually self harm that we're doing here rather than harm that might be coming from The United States Of America with their tariffs, with their customs tariffs. So we're basically imposing tariffs on ourselves. And the commission needs to do something about that. The commissioner for the single market needs to do something about that if we want to consolidate our own economic basis. And for that, a 2 pronged approach. 1st of all, resolve the problems in terms of the law, but also, of course, tackle the problems that might be triggered by domestic legislation. The problem is that many member states see the single market as some kind of threat to their own domestic markets. That's how they treat it. That's how they perceive it. And, you know, they try to look at what they can do, you know, national special certification or other measures to try and circumvent all of this. The commission needs to step in, needs to tackle this, and the whole, the whole toolbox basically needs to be thrown at this to make sure that we can resolve all these problems. We need a proper single market. You know, for instance, the market for telecommunications. Currently, we have 27 telecommunications markets. Energy, we should have 1 energy market. We have 27. We should have 1 for financial services. If that if we could achieve that, then we'd be really, really, a big we'd have made a big step ahead.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2025-05-08 “E-001864/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission In its current review of the 2014 guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines (Aviation Guidelines), the Commission has carried out stakeholder consultations 1 and launched an external support study to be finalised in 2025. The Commission aims to adopt the new rules before the expiry of the 2014 guidelines. Stakeholders will have the chance to comment on the draft Aviation Guidelines before that date. The Commission will ensure that the revision considers all relevant EU objectives such as territorial and social cohesion, regional development as well as others (as contained, e.g., in the Clean Industrial Deal). In that regard, while the Commission acknowledges that regional airports generally may contribute to connectivity, it notes that operating aid is generally one of the most distortive forms of public support, which is why the Aviation Guidelines currently foresee the phase-out of operating aid to regional airports by 3 April 2027. In the context of the greening of aviation, the Commission will assess, among other things, the potential need for the Aviation Guidelines to include specific measures for the decarbonisation of aviation and reduction of aviation related emissions in addition to the possibilities already offered by the 2022 Guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy and by the Framework for State Aid measures to support the Clean Industrial Deal. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_6264.”
  EU Competition policy · Decarbonisation of aviation sector · EU funding for transportation
• “Thank you very much, Madam President. Colleagues. Europe is at a turning point. The Draghi report has shown very clearly that if we lose our competitiveness and then we lose our innovation, this would be terrible. And to combat it, we need investment. The capital is there. European households save more than the international average by a long way. But this money is sitting unproductively in bank accounts or worse. It's flowing off to the United States for investments there. So we are financing innovation and jobs on the other side of the Atlantic, while our own companies end up being left behind. So that's where we need to get active. We need a genuine capital market union where citizens savings go into productive European investments. Banks on their own can't do this job. We need deeper, more integrated capital markets where venture capital, bonds and pension funds are better mobilised. The compass that we need to be following is clear market based solutions, less regulation and a result orientated legislation. Investment has to be accessible and attractive for savers, for startups, for companies. We can't have excessive reporting requirements and red tape. No. We are moving in the right direction now. We need to ensure that we are aware that the world will not wait for us to solve this problem.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Well, just an additional question. At European level, we have adjusted the fiscal rules. So expenditure for defence Fence is not going to cause problems within the fiscal rules, but we have to assume that over the next few years there's going to be increasing debt in member states. You said that you take the facts which you have to into account. How do you see the member states being able to bear the level of debt? And what kind of impact is that going to have on monetary policy?”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. The digital single market is under pressure. The recent measures taken against big tech companies such as Apple and Meta under the DMA clearly demonstrate that our rules are being implemented, but also how necessary they are. Digital markets follow a different logic to conventional ones. Network effects. Data power, platform dependency make life very difficult for fair competition. On the basis of these characteristics, digital markets tend towards monopoly. Small companies are pushed out in in. Innovation is suffocated. And that's why competitive policy needs to be different in the digital sphere. It needs to be quicker, more effectively implemented with the key objective of ensuring competitiveness, not just on paper, but in reality. As Europeans, we support an open market with fair competition where performance and innovation are valued, not the principle that might is right for the Commission as the highest competition authority in Europe, what's important is to ensure that the DSA is effectively enforced, to ensure for certainty and clarity, and leave no loopholes. And that's particularly important for DG competition. We need to make sure that provisions can be implemented. We cannot wait for years for such improvements to be made. Thank you.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “The Tobacco Taxation Directive entered into force, the existing 1 in 2011, with two main objectives to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. That's why we do that. And of course, to provide a high level of public health protection. More than ten years after its adoption, the directive is no longer fit for purpose. The European Commission's 2020 evaluation highlights several key issues regarding the directive effectiveness, and recommends updating it to address emerging tobacco products, which is one of the key elements of the new proposal covering the new products, which have not been invented. In 2011, as part of the EU's beating cancer plan, the Commission suggested revising the directive to achieve the target of a tobacco free generation by 2040. In July 2025, the Commission presented its proposal for a revision of the Taxation Directive. The TTD focusing on three main aspects. Firstly, increasing the EU minimum tax rate on tobacco products to address disparities between member states as things have developed and coming from Germany and as we are next week in Strasbourg. If you have open eyes, you can see what it means in the comparison of the tobacco tax in Germany and the tobacco tax in France, which is something we will discuss about as it is not legal. Extending the directive scope to new products such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, nicotine pouches, liquid for vapes including nicotine free other smokeless products, and raw tobacco, which would make them subject to new minimum taxes.”
  Smoking regulation
• “President. Dear colleagues, our tax rules date back to a time when we had factories, warehouses, offices. That's where our economic activity was. But now we've got data streaming, we've got platforms, we've got digital business models. Things have changed. And that should be reflected in our tax legislation, surely. We need, I think, an up to date definition of taxation and where tax should be levied. It shouldn't just be based on on bricks and mortar. It can't anymore. I think that's clear to everyone and I think it's fair as well. Profits should be taxed where profit is created. When it comes to digital corporations, it would mean that they could no longer avoid responsibility just by settling in low taxation countries, making sure that their turnover is still generated in the EU market, single market without taxation for it. And of course, single market. That's a key word here. We can't just have a patchwork of different rules and regulations. We need to have one single approach that would make the situation fair. It would be a fair, single market, and it would also ensure that all companies have to play by the same rules. So there are contradictions coming from the United States of America. But don't let that stop us. We have our own sovereignty. Europe has its own sovereignty, can take its own decisions when it comes to tax justice in the field of the digital. And our citizens expect this from us, quite rightly so. These tech giants need to make their contribution on a fair basis. And that's why, Commissioner, we need a new approach for a new tax. A digital tax for Europe. Thank you.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Chair. President. Commissioner Investeu has become a major success in recent times, even in difficult economic times where companies have to deal with high interest rates and inflation. But a market based investment instrument needs to be strengthened instead of building up new debt mountains. And that's what we're doing with the investment omnibus. There are three points that I think are particularly important here. Firstly, we're giving more clout to Investeu with higher guarantees and better Uh, in connections to other EU instruments. So each euro from the EU budget can trigger multiple investments from the private sector. We're getting rid of red tape as well. That's the second point. A key part of this work is that we reduce the reporting requirements, particularly for smaller projects and banks that have to implement these projects. Fewer indicators, fewer forms, and more time and money for real investment that helps the small and medium sized enterprises that don't have a whole host of workers who can work on compliance. And so they were saving time by not having to fill in all these films forms. Then thirdly, Commissioner, I hope in the next finance Period will have the same, um, initiatives encouragements to get rid of red tape. So hopefully with the next program, they won't come in through the back door. This needs to become the standard in Europe, and I think we're on the right path here. And thank you, Commissioner, very much for your support. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you very much. I'll speak in German now. Now, in the last month, we've seen impulses within the, uh, with a number of different initiatives. Uh, as far as transaction reports from FEMA and the Sfda. And these efforts, uh, go hand in hand with our expectations in establishing some form of regulation. Now, the standards, guidelines and templates at the EU level, uh, the fact that there can be some sort of redundancy going on and the new details that have come to the forefront, I do feel that all of this is simply a burden for most users in general. The net effect for, uh, undertakings will be very, very neutral, I feel. So, um, uh, as far as simplification, I think we have to have simplification that has to be quantitative and qualitative. And now the new European harmonization. Do you think it moves in that particular direction. In other words in reducing administrative burden and taking into consideration the issue of proportionality as well. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Yes, thank you very much. I'll try and keep it brief. Okay. Can we use regulation to try and create a complementary pensions where they don't exist? Well, I'm not sure about that. If I think back to the hearing last week where Eiopa was thinking about how existing pension systems could be brought under solvency, well, sorry, comparing pension funds with life assurance is just daft. So I've got some fundamental problems here. If what we're trying to achieve is to create more possibilities for occupational pensions, but regulating where we don't manage to create them, I'm not sure that this is an appropriate commission proposal.”
  EU policy on aging workforce and pensions
• “Ladies and gentlemen, the report on the European Semester shows very clearly where we're at. The Commission expects for the European Union to have a very narrow level of growth in the coming years. And because of demography, we're seeing the conditions not really being in place to help us. So we need to look at investments to help boost productivity and competitiveness. So we have to turn the economic semester into a competitive or competitivity semester. The commission is looking more at competitiveness and simplification. That's the right approach. This is a focus that we need to then fill with content. Above all, the country. Specific recommendations for the Member States need to be implemented in a serious fashion. The Recovery and Resilience facility will come to an end at the end of this year, which means structural reforms are urgently necessary in the member states. The semester can become a compass for the European Union if it focuses on growth, competitiveness and private investment, and we, as the EPP, stand behind that as a plan. Thank you.”
  European Semester (social dimension)
• “Yes, thank you very much, Chair, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the rapporteur Miss Kinga Kola, who has other obligations today, I have the honor to speak. The EU concluded agreements on the automatic exchange of financial account information with Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco and San Marino in 2015 and 2016. In the past ten years, the regulatory environment evolved and thus there's a need to amend these agreements accordingly, mentioning three issues: the OECD updated the Common Reporting Standard, the former directive on data protection was repealed and GDPR was introduced, and in the case of Switzerland, the demand arose to extend the scope of the agreement with mutual assistance rules in the recovery of VAT claims. The rapporteur believes that the conclusion of these amending protocols is an important step in continuing and deepening the administrative tax cooperation between the parties, and it would enhance the fight against tax evasion and money laundering, thus bringing added value for the cooperating parties and thus their taxpayers. However, we believe that the EEP should be involved at an earlier stage of the process and have more time to prepare its opinion next time. Also, it's only the consultation procedure. It makes sense that we are consulted in a proper way. That is my translation of what Kinga demands. Summarizing the above, taking into account the technical nature of the files, their largely replicated structure and the importance of avoiding delays to ensure entry into force by first of January next year, the rapporteur, with the consent of the JETTA rapporteur, proposes to have simplified procedure without amendments in all the five cases. Thank you very much, and she is of course kindly asking for the support by the various groups.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• “Thank you very much, Mr. Laporte. I'll be speaking in German. Thank you very much for your introductory remarks. The subject of stability is one that's very close to my heart. We see more and more links between banks and non-banks when it comes to the market for moral instruments. That's to say, instruments that are suitable for bail in. €1.8 billion was spent on immoral, uh, bonds over the recent years. Uh, many of them are in the United States. So this means that risk is shared across a number of different shoulders, but it creates structural fragilities. The SSM said that many of these funds. Quite often hold illiquid bank bonds. This. These funds could be forced into selling under stress conditions, and that could lead to some negative effects that could not only destabilise the resolution banks, but could also lead to a run on these banks by investors. So is this just a theoretical risk or a real risk?”
  Financial regulation
• “Ladies and gentlemen, the report on the European Semester shows very clearly where we're at. The Commission expects for the European Union to have a very narrow level of growth in the coming years. And because of demography, we're seeing the conditions not really being in place to help us. So we need to look at investments to help boost productivity and competitiveness. So we have to turn the economic semester into a competitive or competitivity semester. The commission is looking more at competitiveness and simplification. That's the right approach. This is a focus that we need to then fill with content. Above all, the country. Specific recommendations for the Member States need to be implemented in a serious fashion. The Recovery and Resilience facility will come to an end at the end of this year, which means structural reforms are urgently necessary in the member states. The semester can become a compass for the European Union if it focuses on growth, competitiveness and private investment, and we, as the EPP, stand behind that as a plan. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Chairman. Commissioner. Colleagues. The way we pay is changing rapidly. Paying with cards, apps, instant payment these are all more important. However, digitalisation of payment should not lead to a situation where cash slowly disappears. Citizens have to have the right in the future to pay with cash. It's not just a question of custom, it's a question of freedom of of the private sphere, of self-determination. Cash is printed. Freedom. So the different methods of payment can exist side by side. Digital cards, but also cash. No one should be forced to use a specific type of payment, everyone should be able to freely choose how he will pay. The proposal of the Commission on Cash is going in the right direction. Cash is going to remain legal tender and in daily life it's going to continue to be accepted and people and businesses will have easy access to cash. So that's how we have to judge this legislation. But if you want to have broad access to cash, well then the necessary infrastructure, you need bank branches, you need ATMs, transport of cash. So this infrastructure costs money. So we have to be honest, it can be necessary that those who provide cash services require fees in order to provide this offering of cash that remains instead of slowly disappearing. And I don't think we should not be blocking those provisions in the payment directive. So I think we have to create the right framework to ensure that cash is going to be in your purse and at the counter. Thank you very much.”
  Cash as means of payment
• “(14:50:55 – 14:52:14): you very much. If, you don't mind, I'd like to speak German. Europe's capital markets are, very fragmented. The, clearing houses, are not very well connected. And so as parliament, it's high time for us to work on a market integration, package, which, will overcome this. Attempts thus far to improve market infrastructure and to, bring all of this together often, runs counter to, competition issues and therefore fails. I asked this question before and you gave a very general answer, but this time I'll be quite specific. The new merger controls and the guidelines from the commission, therefore, are they finally going to give us the, measures that we need to be able to take into account the advantages that this will bring for competition rather than just risks? Do we believe that we could use this as a building block for the European capital market? Or will this once again, do you think, fail and prevent Europe from being as competitive as it could be? Thank you very much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam president of the European Central Bank. Commissioner. Colleagues, independence of the central bank is not a simple technical detail. It's an absolute prerequisite for us to have a currency that's credible, for us to have stable prices. Now, it's only when issuing banks can actually be free from political influence and taking their decisions. Only then can we in the long term have stability. So this report reminds us, in fact, quite rightly, that the ECB takes their decisions and must do so without any outside political influence. And this is why it's a little bit worrying that the central banks internationally tend to be put under a lot of pressure, especially with the new administration in the US. We need to be the model for the opposite of that here in Europe. Basically, the European Central Bank is interdependent, and this is something that's anchored in what we believe in in Europe. But of course, accountability is also important and transparency as well. Um, I'm delighted to see you not only here today, Mrs. Lagarde, but thank you for coming regularly to see us in committee. So, of course, this independence doesn't mean we're writing out a blank check. We shouldn't be talking about an extension of the mandate of the ECB, for example. We've seen certain decisions in the past being taken, uh, which go beyond traditional monetary policy decisions. When we talk about the climate and the environment, um, this can lead to distortion. This because this is not in the remit of the ECB. Stick with your mandate and you will be receive our full support. Thank you.”
  ECB monetary policy
• “Thank you. Vice President. Commissioner, colleagues, the report on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility gives us a very sobering picture. There are many milestones which have not been fully met. There are delays piling up. The promised transparency is not there at the economic added value is unclear. The special report of the European Court of Auditors have shown serious problems with the construction of this putatively performance based financial architecture. Unclear definitions of performance criteria, a lack of traceability in spending, and a high risk of double funding because of overlap with other programmes of the EU. Instead of having clear calculations on the actual spending, we have a non-transparent system which is very difficult to understand. This means that we don't have reliable controls, and it's not clear whether the funding is getting through to where it is really needed. The limited transparency creates doubt about the efficiency and whether we are properly handling our taxpayers money. In view of these shortcomings, the fund cannot be regarded as a blueprint for future EU programmes, nor is it something that we would want to extend. And in addition, we have the Damocles sword of the refinancing, the new own resources that we were once promised. The council is not present here and four years on, it's still not available. The repayment of the debt is something that will be a burden on future EU budgets and on the efficiency of the EU. This is something which should really show that new debt is not a way to solve Europe's problems. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “The emissions trading was supposed to be a market based instrument from the onset. Co2 savings that are more profitable, profitable should have been the priority. And this would have sent out a clear signal regarding prices. Directing investment in the right direction and allowing emission savings. But we can only deliver on this promise if the system is reliable. If you set up a system for 30 years, you need predictability. Co2 prices need to be a reliable basis for decisions, not a political variable that is adjusted according to our whims. And that's the problem. We keep tinkering with the system and our economy doesn't know how to invest. So, Commissioner, if you want a profound revision, we should prioritize a stable system that doesn't need adjusting. And we need clear signals regarding the prices. And we need to ensure that the funds remain within the system. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. Chairman. Colleagues, I would really have welcomed having more time for such an important discussion. We need far more time. We only allocated 50 minutes to it for a presentation. And an initial orientation debate is way not enough. We're going to have to have a lot more time to discuss it, because it encompasses a lot of important topics. We need to be clear about a number of things. We introduced the euro, and we now have got to be careful to manage carefully how we introduce the digital euro if we want to do it. We need to have an objective and we need to have a purpose. And there is no point if we don't. There's a lot of differences of opinion across the committee. The rapporteur has clearly taken a huge amount of time to try to sound out different approaches, and I welcome that and congratulate him. What I don't understand is how we're working on the basis of a commission proposal, which bears no relation to the work going on in the ECB. It is very difficult for the co-legislators to deal with the topic on this basis. If the ECB is asking American services how it can introduce the digital euro, I don't understand how they intend us to be sovereign and independent. There are lots of very serious questions here.”
  Digital euro
• “Madam president, Commissioner, colleagues, the report that we're voting on this week. Makes a clear diagnosis. The housing crisis is a problem of supply in many. In many member states. Construction of housing has been too. Week to week, there are two too few permits and the gap between supply and demand means prices are going higher. If we want to have affordable housing, we need one thing more construction. Building more and faster Europe can help by cutting red tape. The report calls for a horizontal review of EU legal acts and the drive up housing and renovation prices, and it talks about a simplification package. The housing omnibus must start there. Remove fuel regulations. Remove unnecessary rules. Digital standards permitting, the commission should deliver that soon and this should be a priority for them. And we must talk about financing too. The report underlines how important it is to have access to housing, finance and the credit conditions and interest rates have become much more strict in recent years. After the introduction of new capital standards, construction project financing has become more expensive. If you want. If you want to have more housing, you must have a quick look and not make them hold things up with more regulations. Sustainable financing, more construction. Those are the solutions to solving the housing crisis. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(16:43:38 – 16:49:48): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, colleagues. The package that we're talking about today here is about market integration and supervision sorry, MISP. And here, we're looking at the European capital markets and ensuring that they can finally play the role that they should do. We've got to look at investment and ensuring that we can facilitate it. With both of these goals in mind, I'd like to briefly talk about innovation in the financial sector as well as a few horizontal aspects. I'll start with market integration. On market integration here, the commission has highlighted a lot of good starting points to try to break down our cross border, barriers, better integrated reporting, various other aspects, and these are all points which go in the right direction and that we should be developing. There is a market fragmentation side to this as well, which I don't think has been focused on enough in the package and particularly here liquidity. For years, we've been looking at trading volumes needing to be stored for very long periods of time. This isn't just a technical detail. This is a major issue because fragmented, liquidity, leads to increased costs and makes our European markets less attractive for, institutional investors. The 2nd topic that I'd like to discuss relates to supervision. The package here quite rightly targets consistent supervision outcomes, but here supervision isn't ends in and of itself. Here we need to find the correct approach. Particularly here when it's about when we're talking about cross border infrastructure, we need to have centralized supervision. I think that is a fundamental line that we should be examining here. Large trading platforms and other large cross border platforms are places where supervision needs to be done well. We've also got a lot of small regional and local actors, for example, in investment funds. And this is an area where there is a very good argument for national supervision, particularly bearing in mind the sheer number of market, actors. And, this is where national supervisory body supervisory bodies have got a major role to play. This, I think, shows that with each of these topics, we have to look at what the best supervision approach is. Now on innovation and digital ledger technologies, this is somewhere where, on distributed ledger technologies, Europe thus far has done, very well. This isn't always the case. And so I think here, have to be very clear that we do encourage this kind of good development. A lot of steps have been taken to, improve technology in this area, and internationally, this is seen as a very good framework. However, usage of it has been limited, And so this, I think, is worth looking at in greater detail, looking at how we can ensure we improve take up. Looking at what why market actors at the moment are not using this, whether it's threshold values or lack of certainty. I think this is somewhere where we need to find answers, I will certainly try to do that in my report. I will try to ensure that we can develop as as, good a DAT, approach as we can. I think we need a clear legal framework for making investments in this area more attractive. Now there are a few horizontal matters that also have to be taken into account in this kind of package. The 1st horse the main horizontal is an issue here is ESMA governance. The package does touch upon this, but for me, I don't think it goes far enough. This is an issue, where we've seen problems with ESMA governance before. National interests have prevailed, and I think too often, they've been focusing on supervision and national issues. I think this is something we can talk about and look at how we can improve the European perspective in this area. The, executive board has been proposed, and I think this is something that we should look in into in order to ensure that European concerns can be focused on. We also have to get a holistic approach, though, so that we can ensure that ESMA also takes competitiveness into account. I think the, FCA model in The UK has proven that, this kind of system can work, and so I think this is something we should look into. Now, in the new report with every new level 2 authorization, I think we also have to look at other issues. For example, whether regulatory added value is appropriate and at the right level. This is, response this is for the regulation, but also for the directive for where I am a shadow as well. And I think this is somewhere where, we need we've got a little bit more work to do. Now I only had 6 minutes. I think those are the main points of the package that need to be discussed. I'm very much looking forward to the debate and, looking forward to our colleagues' contributions. Thank you.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you very much. I'll be speaking in German if you permit. Um, well, thank you very much. Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Harkema. Now, this week, we have a new package from the commission on the old, uh, security system and, um, I insurance system, and that there are elements that are long term and short term as well. And I simply wanted to ask, uh, just as Mario Draghi mentioned in his particular report and proposed in his report. Uh, uh, so for you, uh, the packages in December, if I'm not mistaken, and it ought to come to, to asthma a bit earlier. Now, how could you you've mentioned that there's a little bit more that asthma has to work out on this particular insurance package. So we'd like to know what could be done when we, of course, hear about the particular proposal. Uh, how can we know that, that it's all implementable, that it's something that can be implemented and that it won't result in additional burden as well? So one has to remember the issue of proportionality. The ten years already has caused a lot of issues with people. So your task force as far as dealing with this particular issue, how effective have they been with their particular proposals? Are they at the end of their work, or are they at some sort of starting point right now with it? Thank you.”
  European Deposit Insurance Scheme
• “Yes, thank you very much. I'll be speaking German. Thank you very much, Mr. Michaud. A few years ago, when we revised the CRD and CRR, we looked at the subject of proportionality. That was our main focus. We defined what small non complex banks were and the kind of requirements that could be linked to this status. Apart from a few small supervisory uh uh reductions of complexity. We haven't really managed to make that concept of small non complex banks an effective one. Now when we're looking at, Uh, proportionality. Then I think that there is room for more work to be done, to say the least. In a lot of the level two and level three measures from the EPA when it comes to sustainable finance. Proportionality really has been forgotten about entirely. What are you going to do in your second term in office to try and ensure that proportionality is a greater part of the work of the EBA? Thank you very much.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you. Also from me. This is a welcome draft, but I too have a number of questions in my mind. The costs are eye watering. They haven't gone down, and it would appear that the advantage, especially if an offline option is included, are problematic. In the past, we were talking about having a payment card in order to make payment services possible. This didn't really ever see the light of day properly. Now the online digital euro, according to the draft, should be contingent upon the evolution of the private sector and how dynamic that is. Well, I am a bit skeptical about this. I don't really see where we're going with that. I don't see how we're supposed to roll it out, and it's not clear that it will be available Europe wide, nor is it clear that it will remain in European hands. It could perfectly well be up for sale. So I have concerns about that, and I'd have a very strong preference for it remaining in the public sector and not in the hands of the banks, and giving them too much discretion. Thank you.”
  Digital euro
• “Thank you very much indeed. Madam president, Commissioner, representative of the Council. Colleagues, Europe's capital market is still fragmented and for our companies, that really provides them with a disadvantage lower liquidity, higher financing costs. And that's also the reason why stock exchanges and securitization activities take place in London and New York rather than in Paris, Amsterdam or Dublin. So we need more market integration for financial service provision, and that needs to be at the heart of what we do. And the European Commission's proposal takes us in the right direction. Now the Parliament wants to deliver on this quickly. It's our ambition to wrap up the procedure in-house by the end of the year, so that Europe can have results to show for it quickly. Now, legislation is a precondition for all of this. But of course, we also need to make sure that real existing cross-border obstacles are done away with. Tax obstacles, for example, impeding investments. And we also need restructuring and insolvency frameworks if you want to. If you want to mobilise markets, you need to overcome these hurdles and obstacles. Now, Commissioner, we also need controls that take markets seriously and we need European champions that are possible. So DG competition needs to be on board. We can't have regulatory obstacles to market integration being done away with. But then basically DG competition, stopping cross-border activities and throwing up obstacles to it and to council. I have this plea. Please be as ambitious as we are in Parliament so that we can have good solutions, not just when it comes to the timing, but also when it comes to the substance. And then hopefully in a couple of years time we can meet again based on better figures. Thank you very much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Yes. Thank you very much. I'll be speaking German, so get your headphones on. Thank you very much for your presentation and your thoughts. I wanted to touch on a very specific subject, and that's the availability of data linked to defence expenditure. We've got new security policy challenges And that the chair interrupts.”
  Defence spending
• “(17:15:42 – 17:17:14): Yeah. Thank you very much. I will try to do it now in English. First of all, I appreciate the spirit. I hope we can maintain that till the end of the negotiations. We have this good cooperation, which I felt already when we had the hearing, and I am feeling today as well. I appreciate all the support we get even from the European Economic and Social Committee, but especially from the commission. I have discussed more than once with our parliament's president that all services are provided, that we can deliver in proper time as well. Sorry. That means meeting rooms, translation capacities, and all the stuff as well to fit the target what the heads of states have already agreed on. So I hope we can manage it as well. You will be surprised that a lot of things which have been brought up by the colleagues will already be in my report. But as I had only six minutes to present the first ideas, I could not go into all the details. But I think everything which I have heard throughout all the colleagues, you will see even in my draft, and I hope that my ideas will be brought forward from my colleagues as well in their files. So I'm really optimistic that we are not only able to deliver in time, but we are also able to deliver a European approach which creates a benefit for the European Union, for the single market, and for the people.”
  EU political integration
• “Ladies and gentlemen, we need to be frank. Just meeting reporting standards and filling in forms is not going to help environmental protection or help labour protection in developing countries. Csr and due diligence rules can help. But they're not a panacea. Are they actually going to achieve what the majority believed would happen when they created them against my vote? When it comes to the supply due diligence laws in the way they're formed at the moment, they are not a serviceable instrument to achieve goals. They are unnecessarily complicated. They lead to heavy administrative burdens. They may generate jobs, but only for lawyers and corporate lobbyists. But it's not really helping. The commission is doing a good job in putting forward proposals. They go in the right direction, but I would have expected a degree. More ambition, Madam Commissioner, especially within taxonomy. You only want to stick to level two and time resolved things with delegated acts. I think the mother of all problems is taxonomy. We expect more coming from the commission because we need to sort things out there to a greater degree. Thank you.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Okay. So good morning, everyone. It's a great pleasure having you here. Uh, I want to welcome all of you before we start this hour hearing. I have a few things to do according to the agenda. And the first thing is the adoption of the draft agenda. If there are no remarks, the agenda is adopted as proposed. Then we come to the chair's announcements. At their meeting of the 4th of November the fifth coordinators took following decisions. Firstly, they agreed on the topics to be discussed at the EU Tax Symposium and now pencil it in your agenda on the 17th of March next year. Secondly, they agreed to organize an Interparliamentary Committee meeting on a yearly basis, likely in autumn, which means next year third coordinators decided to draw up an implementation report on the VAT reverse charge mechanism. Not the first one, not the last one, I think, but that is only my personal remark. Fourthly, they agreed to invite Commissioner Hoekstra to an exchange of views to discuss the Commission Work Programme 2026. This public meeting will most probably take place already before Christmas time on the 11th of December, which has to be confirmed and you will be informed immediately after we got the approval by the commissioner. That brings us to point number three of our agenda, which is the adoption of the minutes. If there are no objections, the minutes of the first committee meeting of the 23rd of September, 2025 are approved.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Yes. Thank. Minister. I'll be speaking my mother tongue. Or a dialect of German? Now two topics. The Energy Taxation Directive and the Payment Directive. So energy taxation is part of the fit for 55 package. It's the last piece of legislation that hasn't been passed. Time is ticking on the Energy Taxation Directive. Do you think that it's possible to find a compromise on the Energy Taxation Directive? Or do you think that the Commission will have to look at the directive again and perhaps just focus on what is necessary, i.e. focus on the taxation of new fuels? Some member states have got their own national taxation systems. I don't think that would be good for the internal market. And then I want to talk about another package, the payment services providers and the directive. When am I responsible and liable as a consumer, and when is the bank liable? And we have more and more ID spoofing. Phishing. Uh, fraud. So do you think we can see any progress on that? The payment services side. Thank you.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Thank you very much. Welcome, Commissioner. I'll be speaking German. Well, welcome to the econ committee. And you're here in your function as commissioner responsible for competition issues. I'm very pleased to see you here. The commission president in this legislative term, has announced that this is a term of office devoted to competitiveness. Well, how can we promote that? We've seen tariffs emerging in the last few days from the US side. We always get the answer back that we've got the single market. The single market has to be the centre of our strategy. But we see that single market is actually very fragmented and to the point that it barely exists. Companies that want to grow, that want to have scale up effects, well, they really need a huge market. I mean, India can do this kind of scale. The US used to be able to do it, but the European Union doesn't manage. This is important on competition policy. And when it comes to merger control in particular. The commission has a very. Strong responsibility in ensuring that things don't happen because they look at partial markets rather than looking at the world situation. So if you look at the merger control regulation, it's 20 years old. Maybe it's time to review that so that we can actually get a single market at the end of the day. Would you be prepared to revise the merger control regulation to ensure that we can get European champions in place?”
  EU Competition policy
• “Mr. Vice president, Commissioner payable. Housing has become the main issue of the day. A lot of people can't get somewhere to build because there's so much to live, because too little is being built and too little is being investment. The problem is supply problem, and we can only solve it by building more. And of course Europe can help with that. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the commission is now coming up with a European plan for affordable housing. Although building homes is not traditionally a competence of the European Commission, the question is whether this is really going to increase supply. It depends on three things as far as I'm concerned less bureaucracy and more speed. Planning and authorisation procedures must be speeded up and be standardised and digitised. And we should be able to have automatic authorisation if too long time um elapses. We need to see what is making building more expensive. It's got to be affordable, to pay more, to build more. Rules doesn't solve the problem. We want standardisation, modular building, new materials, less costs. And suddenly we've got to mobilize the financing. The EIB and national banks must be used and private fortunes must be invested. This is the task that we must solve together. Thank you.”
  EU housing policy
• “Thank you very much, dear Pascal, president of the Eurogroup. Given the tense geopolitical situation, the president in Munich, at the security conference, she said, when it comes to the Stability and Growth pact, that we are going to use the derogation in order to be able to increase defence spending. I think we agree that Europe has to spend more for its defence. This is of a high priority, but we know from experience we also know that financial stability has been important for the past 50 years. So we're looking at the details now of all of this, but things are lot very unclear as as the president of the Eurogroup, this pact. What about this, uh, clause that's going to be able to spend more? How will that be made? Conditional. The escape clause at this point in time. Thank you.”
  Defence spending
• “They are not covered yet, and strengthening controls on raw tobacco to prevent diversion to illicit markets. In today's hearing, we want to gather information and discuss tobacco taxation policies in line with the recent proposal from the European Commission. In particular, we would like to identify the potential effects on the functioning of the single market of the EU harmonised taxation on new tobacco products. As I described, one of the problems with only minimum taxation and the increase of the minimum level of taxation on tobacco products. The insights from this hearing will feed into the work of the European Parliament's opinion on the tobacco taxation proposals. You know the procedures, we are consulted and the procedure has already started in the relevant committees. I am therefore very glad to have our five experts today who will present us with their valuable views on the topics. So I thank you for your availability to meet and to engage. You know, we have strong, strong timing rules here. Uh, each of you will have seven minutes for introductory remarks after your opening statements. Uh, so after all the five have presented their opening statements, we will open the floor for Q&A session with the members of the committee with, uh, two minutes for the question and three minutes for the answer. And, uh, we would like to start with you, Miss Krista. You have the floor.”
  EU taxation policy (political compass)
• “(16:13:19 – 16:14:26): don't know, whether Markus Zoda was a good enough reason to turn up late to our meeting, but, nevertheless, I have 3 particular questions now. Firstly, you talked about a lack of kerosene. My question is, what approach is the commission taking? What possible solutions? Secondly, we talked about passenger rights. Next week, we would have this the proposal on ticketing. Are you optimistic? Do you think it will go as you, as you plan? And thirdly, we're all talking about the future in Europe and the future of the automotive industry. Talked about the automotive package. And for me, it's important to to for us to develop a European future, not an Asian future, a European future for the sector. If we want this, then we have to find a solution together using a political methods. And my plea would be for a political solution, and to do that, we'd need your support. And I know I need to keep it short, but I think this is something where we really do need to find a political compromise. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much. President of the Parliament. President of the Commission. Dear colleagues, this new work programme from the Commission has a very ambitious title. Europe's moment of independence. But, you know, we need to make sure that we do justice to that title. Economically, things are not certain at all. And we need growth, competitiveness and investment, which is at the centre of this work programme. Now you say that Europe is to become an attractive place for companies again and for entrepreneurs. Well then that has to be clear from your proposals. There are a couple of positive elements to focus on the internal market. You know, there's a great deal of potential, but we also sometimes need to take risks, even if member states counter that sometimes with the Econ committee, we were at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund, and they said, your internal market isn't a true internal market, so we need to get to grips with that and be ambitious. We need to show that we are Competitive, not just when it comes to our economy, but also when it comes to banks and finances. So why not have a bank and finance omnibus so that with clear rules we can achieve something? It's not about deregulating, it's about simplifying. Do things in a more straightforward way that will get us on track now. 2026 is to be the year where in the EU we become enablers rather than just legislators. We need to make more things possible rather than regulate, regulate. And if we achieve that, then the EU really will have a good future. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Madam president, Commissioner, colleagues, the report that we're voting on this week. Makes a clear diagnosis. The housing crisis is a problem of supply in many. In many member states. Construction of housing has been too. Week to week, there are two too few permits and the gap between supply and demand means prices are going higher. If we want to have affordable housing, we need one thing more construction. Building more and faster Europe can help by cutting red tape. The report calls for a horizontal review of EU legal acts and the drive up housing and renovation prices, and it talks about a simplification package. The housing omnibus must start there. Remove fuel regulations. Remove unnecessary rules. Digital standards permitting, the commission should deliver that soon and this should be a priority for them. And we must talk about financing too. The report underlines how important it is to have access to housing, finance and the credit conditions and interest rates have become much more strict in recent years. After the introduction of new capital standards, construction project financing has become more expensive. If you want. If you want to have more housing, you must have a quick look and not make them hold things up with more regulations. Sustainable financing, more construction. Those are the solutions to solving the housing crisis. Thank you.”
  EU housing policy