David CORMAND

Policy topics David CORMAND is active on

What David CORMAND has said (37)

• 2026-03-09 “Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission 12.5.2026 Written question The Commission announced [1] [2] ,that the study on ‘ultra-processed foods’ will rely on the opinions of the Scientific Advice Mechanism (comprising the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors (GCSA) [3] ) and the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) [4] . The advisory process typically spans one year from the receipt of an official request for advice. GCSA and EGE Opinions rely on scientific literature reviews, expert hearings and workshops. They are supported by the Horizon Europe-funded Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA) [5] and Support for the Activities of the European Group on Ethics by European Academia and Ethics Bodies (SAEGE) [6] projects, respectively, that supply evidence review reports (ERRs) and independent expert panels. SAPEA’s reports undergo double-blind peer review, while GCSA drafts are scrutinised by experts, the Commission, and external stakeholders. Declarations of interest are available on the Register of Commission expert groups (GCSA and EGE), or the Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (SAM) website [7] (SAPEA working groups) post-ERR publication, to prevent lobbying. All meetings remain closed to prevent undue influence. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0525&qid=1762330863739. [2] https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/communication-eu-cardiovascular-health-plan-safe-hearts-plan_en. [3] https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-publications-tools-and-data/publications/all-publications/commission-decision-setting-high-level-group-scientific-advisors_en. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024D1997. [5] https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101198044. [6] https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101256865. [7] https://scientificadvice.eu.”
  Nutrition
• 2025-07-08 “P-002764/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is fully aware that trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) is a substance of emerging concern. Therefore, the Commission has signed an agreement with the World Health Organization (WHO) to assess the most recent scientific evidence on potential health effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) including TFA. On that basis, the WHO might recommend health-based values for relevant PFAS (and TFA) in drinking water. In parallel, a study is ongoing to analyse treatment techniques and their related costs for PFAS (and TFA) removal from drinking water. Based on the outcome of the WHO assessment, expected in 2027, and the ongoing study, the Commission will consider the best course of action. The EU has already taken significant steps to control the risks from PFAS through restrictions of several PFAS under the EU chemicals legislation (REACH) 1 . In addition, the Commission is expecting the opinion of the European Chemicals Agency 2 on a dossier on all PFAS in 2026 and will come up with a REACH restriction proposal as soon as possible upon reception of the opinion. For certain products and equipment Regulation (EU) 2024/573 3 already bans all fluorinated greenhouse gases, many of which are PFAS. Also, the Commission has removed a number of PFAS pesticides that degrade to TFA from the EU market. Most others are under reevaluation. The Plant Protection Products Regulation 4 does not allow approval or renewal of approval of an active substance to be refused solely because it is a PFAS, but other grounds may apply 5 . 1 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006. 2 https://echa.europa.eu/. 3 Regulation (EU) 2024/573 of the European Parliament and of the Council on of 7 February 2024 on fluorinated greenhouse gases, OJ L, 2024/573, 20.2.2024. 4 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50. 5 As stated in its reply to written question E-000268/2024.”
  Water pollution · PFAs
• 2025-02-19 “E-000757/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has launched a discussion with Member States and stakeholders in the Motor Vehicle Working Group with the aim of tightening the safety and environmental requirements for individually approved vehicles under Regulation (EU) 2018/858 1 . The proposals under discussion include requirements for each vehicle to be subject to pollutant emission testing, including for real-driving emissions, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 2 and to ensure that the CO 2 emissions of those vehicles are calculated or measured in accordance with that Regulation. The legislative amendments under discussion are expected to be adopted by the end of 2025. Individually approved new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles have to be reported by Member States as part of the annual CO 2 monitoring under Regulation (EU) 2019/631 3 . Once the type-approval requirements have been updated, the Commission may take further steps to take the CO 2 emissions data for these vehicles into account for the purpose of calculating the manufacturer’s CO 2 emission performance. 1 Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/858/oj 2 Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 of 1 June 2017 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ L 175, 7.7.2017, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/1151/oj). 3 Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 setting CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and for new light commercial vehicles (OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, p. 13, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/631/oj).”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2024-11-06 “E-002437/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Artificial Intelligence Act (‘AI Act’) 1 introduces proportionate rules for AI systems in the EU, following a risk-based approach. Certain AI practices that pose an unacceptable risk are prohibited 2 . AI systems classified as ‘high-risk’ include, among others, AI systems intended to be used to evaluate the eligibility of natural persons for essential public assistance benefits and services as well as to grant, reduce, revoke, or reclaim such benefits and services 3 . These systems will have to comply with a set of requirements 4 and be assessed for their conformity prior to their placement on the market and use. In addition, deployers of high-risk AI systems will also have obligations, such as to implement the human oversight, monitor for risks and inform affected persons about the use. Deployers who are public authorities or provide public services must also carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment. Market surveillance authorities under the AI Act are empowered to investigate AI systems for their compliance with the AI Act, including to request corrective measures and withdrawal of the AI system from the market. Natural and legal persons can also submit complaints that will enable rapid intervention. In addition, the AI Act strengthens the role of authorities supervising existing EU legislation on fundamental rights, such as equality bodies and data protection authorities, empowering them to effectively investigate and address potential violations, including cases of discrimination. The Commission will cover social rating systems and discriminatory profiling practices in the guidelines on the application of the AI Act 5 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (Text with EEA relevance), PE/24/2024/REV/1, OJ L, 2024/1689, 12.7.2024. 2 This includes AI practices that produce a social score that leads to detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or groups of persons in social contexts that are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected or that is unjustified or disproportionate to their social behaviour or its gravity. As per Article 5(8) of the AI Act, this Article shall not affect the prohibitions that apply where an AI practice infringes other EU law. 3 Annex III point 5(a) of the AI Act. 4 E.g. risk management system, data governance to ensure data quality and avoid discrimination, transparency, documentation, human oversight, accuracy and robustness. 5 E.g. for prohibited practices under Article 5 of the AI Act and for high-risk AI systems under Article 6 of the AI Act.”
  Digitalization of public governance & administration · Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you. President. Vice president. How should I put it? I think today you are in some way the Minister for the defence of the European Union, because the dossier you're responsible for is essential in defending ourselves against attacks on our economic interests, but also against democracy. So, Madam Vice President, as we speak in this hemicycle, I'd ask you to listen to this part, not this part, because there's a fifth column in this part who are here to protect foreign interests and Donald Trump do not yield to pressure. They will tell you we are the enemies of freedom. But for them, freedom is the right to make Nazi salutes. But not here, not in Europe. Because we have a history. We have a geography, which means that we are here to defend these values. So do not surrender. Do not make digital regulation a variable as it might be seen in other sectors. We need to regulate in order for our democracy to survive.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Forthcoming discussions will focus on essential subjects such as operate a third party responsibility, market surveillance and also the digital passport for products. On that latter point, we are moving towards an objective of a clear DPP, which is operable, which offers up reliable information not only so as to support sustainability, including on the secondhand market, but also to make it easier to facilitate access to our market for firms outside of the European Union. We want to have useful and clear rules that send out the right signals, which value intra European production on our own market. I would like to sincerely thank our colleagues, the rapporteurs, for their commitment, and I am confident in our capacity, capacity to come together with dynamic compromises which will strengthen our internal market, which will work towards a sovereign market, sustainable, which offers employment and also protects consumers whilst promoting intra European production. Thank you.”
  Product passport
• “Then Miss Gehringer and Denny Minsky from Pure Fear on the product passport. Uh, I would like us to talk about what we mean by product passport, because your arguments were saying. Well, actually. Or actually, I can tell you the product passport is something that manufacturers are calling for. It's not small businesses. It's big multinationals that are making sure that the products can't be repaired. So in the product passport, they will have to provide the information so that the small businesses, the repair businesses can repair them. So the passport is not closing the door to our small businesses. On the contrary, we're opening up. We're revealing information so that they can repair products. It's an advantage for our small businesses. It's not a penalty, but we'll be able to talk about all the details of this. Anyway, we agree, uh, that uh, we want simplification. Uh, but it's not in the title of the own initiative report. In my thinking, applying all those 2008 texts would mean that simplification is intrinsically included without having to highlight it. But in any case, I'm delighted that we're going to be working together on this. Uh, and we can give plenty of ideas to the commission for the next step. I understand from the Commission that the idea of having a true legislative text on this is something that is becoming more concrete. So that's good news for all of us. Thank you.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I'll speak in French if you want to put on your headphones. I think there are three real issues when it comes to social media platforms. So dangerous or harmful content. There's a lack of moderation there. There is addiction. And also the issue with the use of algorithms. I think it can have a really psychologically damaging effect on vulnerable people, especially young people. So there is anxiety, there's bullying, um, isolation. Uh, we have a Marie, 16, who was, uh, online, uh, talking about her problems. She got likes instead of help. Um, and the platforms did nothing to help her. So the solution, I think, is not to have more, uh, valence of young people or to ban them from going onto social media or to blame parents. I think the platforms are those that are responsible. Uh, protection is not surveillance. It is taking power back from the platforms, making the algorithms more, uh, transparent, uh, advertising targeted to young people and have, um, prevention training support in place. Young people don't need to be spied on. They need to be respected, protected, and given a certain amount of freedom but protected from the excesses of the platforms.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Thank you. Thank you. Chair. As our creators are suffering, great generative A.I. developers outside Europe are pillaging EU creations without any transparency, with full impunity and without paying anyone. We have fundamental rights in the EU to to respect the work of authors, journalists, creators and so on. But it's not just about paying people for their work. It's about economic sovereignty, and it's also about cultural diversity that is part of our key democratic cultural heritage. Axel Ross's report is a valuable one, and it constitutes a first step towards trying to ensure that these principles can be put into practice, protecting copyright and media freedom. These are intangible principles. Full transparency Sea of data used to train AI. Without that, transparency will just be handing over all of our European creations wholesale to digital developers. Global license is not a suitable answer. I have a lot of concerns about the idea of the 5 to 7% tax on online operators. If a work is used, there should be clear consent and there should be obligatory remuneration. Any AI generating content on the basis of protected works should be assumed to have used those works, unless they can demonstrate the opposite. I think following that through in a firm way would do away with impunity. What we need to be doing with this report is sending out a clear message in the EU. We're not against innovation. It's just that we can't have progress on the basis of predatory approaches to EU creators by those who are outside the EU. We protect our creators and that protects our competitiveness and our sovereignty in Europe.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you. Mr. President. Mr. President, Axel Voss, artificial intelligence. Generative. Text, image, music, often protect both works and others. We consider the development of African activities in general and in particular, based on several fundamental questions. Authors' rights, and therefore creators' rights, must be protected for creation. Industrial and technological aspects of European human creation, author's rights before us allow the production and distribution of synthetic content without any traceability or information on the artistic and cultural sources used for training. Today, transparency mechanisms for the conduct of law are being implemented. We therefore demand effective transparency, work by work, of sources and uses. The preservation of prompts to be able to act in the event of overuse. A work to protect. Power relations. On copyright, the regulation of the part of tech measures has the silence of creators and creators, copyright, and the condition for the existence of free, diverse, living, innovative, and European creation. In the service of the general interest and therefore for the citizen, democracy, and the creator. Thank you.”
  Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
• “Thank you. And good afternoon to everybody. Now, this is quite an important file. We're all aware of the last year's social movements, agricultural ones, which are reflecting the destruction of our agricultural networks throughout the across the face of Europe and the destruction of that that link that network for agricultural production is linked to the fact that farmers are not in charge of the prices at which they sell what they produce. That's an anomaly, and one we have to correct. So when we talk about the value chain, it's this brutal situation, this injustice we're talking about, which is being faced by our farmers. And that's why we are proposing a certain number of ambitious provisions to correct this one, a more central role for the Commission in towards the consistent Recent implementation of European law. We cannot hide behind national legislation to allow our farmers to be, um, to have people steal from our farmers for the price of their work, people who are acting at European level, who are extra national. Secondly, the responsibility of non-European purchasers who use the internal market without using our rules. It's not acceptable to allow these companies to benefit from our own markets. And the last point mechanisms for specific protection for people in the value chain, the suppliers, providers, SMEs. Our role is to strengthen the negotiating power of our farmers.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you for this. Any report proposal, if it does become a legislative report, it will be one of the most important files of this mandate given the current geopolitical situation. We need to take the wool away from our eyes and see that the EU market is the only one in the world that exposes our industrial and economic sector on all sides, but we do have high public, we do have high purchasing power through public procurement. We have this idea of buying European buying sustainable, and we do need to make sure that that is borne out in all of our public procurement processes. We need to make sure that collective bargaining is taken into account. It's completely unfair not to use this in order to strengthen the income of farmers and to promote local buying. We see that larger companies are taking profits away from smaller farmers. So I think this is a great avenue. Rapporteur. We should continue in this vein and be bold match.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Thank you. Colleagues, I will be speaking in French. Thank you to the rapporteur for her proposal. Indeed, the deadline for the amendments is tomorrow and we've already sent in some. Now, just on this file, I'd like to tell you a story. Here in France. A lot of big data platforms are carrying out ads showing why the EU needs to regulate age, access of minors to platforms. And I'm going to explain why. They want to ask the EU to do this. And that's because they don't want us to go and stick our noses into their algorithms and how they work. These platforms are creating infrastructures and functions that by default, render our children prisoners of the internet. So our committee is the Consumer Protection Committee. So it's important that we protect the public from these dangerous toxic practices by big tech companies. These are the people that we should be going after. So what's at stake here is that we shouldn't be monitoring our children or accusing parents by telling them to do the work that big tech companies should be doing. Our work is to demand big tech platforms to stop poisoning the brains of our children, pushing them to suicide and exposing them to harmful content. So I'm very pleased that we can work together with you and other committees on this file. European citizens are waiting for us to act because on a daily basis they are confronted, um, their children are confronted with social media, and we need to be by their side so that we can really protect our future generations and see the harm that big tech companies are causing. Thank you.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “Colleagues, our democracy is dying before our eyes, under the clicks and the posts from the far right, pushed by the platforms and the American and Chinese algorithms. We're facing an external threat that's being orchestrated by the imperialist forces of China and the US, but also internal forces. The far right parties who are sitting right here in this House in the European Parliament. This is really hollowing out our democracies, and their success depends on our downfall. So it's exploiting the algorithms to undermine our society, push for profit. And. In this war we are fighting foreign hostile interference accomplices from within our ranks who are undermining our very institutions, whether it's Moscow, Beijing or anywhere else. The intention is the same. It's hatred and pushing the narratives of our enemies. We have to take control of these algorithms that are designed to kill our democracies, protect press freedom, cut short, circuit this hatred that's being peddled. Interruption from the president.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “This passport product passport would allow each citizen to be aware of the environmental quality of what they're buying. It will allow us to better protect our borders against low quality goods, which do not comply with our laws. Because this will facilitate the work of customs, and this passport will provide specific information to repairers to better repair objects. This report also imposes clear responsibility on companies. Any non-European companies selling in Europe must appoint a legal representative in the European Union? The access to the single market cannot can no longer rhyme with impunity. If you want to sell here, then you are liable here. And in a market which is increasingly dominated by algorithms, this text reasserts a democratic principle which is key. The consumer must always have the last say. I should never replace them. I should never replace him. Commissioner. What we are doing is clearing a tracing a clear political path. It's better to repair than to throw away. Sustainability will become the norm. A low price will no longer justify destruction of what we already have. This will thus form a pillar of our circular economy. It's a clear mandate for the Commission choosing quality over quantity. Sustainability over the short term. A short term approach and repairers and craftspeople are looking at it. So they are waiting for us to translate this into concrete actions.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “It also means we can protect our economy and our ease with a lower level of VAT on fast fashion. Now there's a range of different positions, even though there is an interest in setting out a position on this topic. It's something which is extremely important from an economic point of view in the EU. Greens are calling for, um, a strong response to this, and we need to make sure we are consistent with the aims of the Green Deal. We also need to make sure we are consistent with the aims of competitiveness as well at an EU level. Now finally, on market surveillance and European certification, we share the aim of trying to strengthen trust without creating any unnecessary, unnecessary, um, uh, bureaucracy. So we are trying to find a balance between the implementation of our ambition. The ambition of text have already been adopted and also concerns of some colleagues. We want to make sure that this implementation doesn't undermine competitiveness, nor do they want to get to a situation where we are increasing the levels of bureaucracy. So this is one of the files which I think it will be possible to do. So we can have simplification with green ambition and economic ambition. And that's what we're going to focus on trying to do. Again, I'd like to thank all my colleagues for the very extensive discussions that we've had, and I think there are 3 or 4 technical meetings have already taken place as well, and it has been won a Political Shadows meeting already. But thank you very much to everyone who's been involved with it. And thank you for the amendments that you've tabled, and we'll try and bring them together. Thank you.”
  VAT harmonisation
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner colleagues. Public procurement represents a €2 trillion a year for the European Union. This is several times the amount of the budget. And this is public money the money of the European people. So we are proposing a European act. We need a Green act to protect the planet, to protect our sovereignty and to protect our social provisions. We are seeing the US and Russia and China are encouraging overexploitation of the world, and the European Union is falling behind. What we do needs to be at the service of our sovereignty, economy and values. And the Commission refers to a strong Europe, which is not going to give Y, which is going to support its industry and take on board European preference. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Chair: Thank you. Miss Lee Anderson has the floor.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Thank you very much, chair. I would very much like to thank the European Court of Auditors for the work it has done. It really does shine a very useful light on the current limitations of PPOs. Your report clearly shows that in many out of the outermost regions, the program too often enables inequalities stemming from the colonial period to persist. It looks at providing support to traditional export branches, which are often owned by those that benefited from the colonial era. Banana and cane sugar, for instance, are two examples of this. What about the long term economic viability? It does not also. It also does not provide them with enough support in terms of agricultural diversification. We can see climate resilience, generational renewal, access to aid for smaller holdings. It should become much more part and parcel of the of the structure in the future. We cannot further fragile peace or further imperil the future of this instrument. In the next MFF is essentially will in a sense disappear, and it will be then put in larger national envelopes for the outermost regions. The political and budgetary visibility is essential. If you look at. Article three, four nine and what that says about vulnerability to, to, to climate change and also, um, food dependency. My questions on the basis of your observations, do you think that, um, the current proposals actually, um, make things make things better or do you think that there is more of a risk of the outermost regions being less protected and less visible? Secondly, what guarantees do you think are indispensable for, um, the greater need for diversification, food sovereignty and um allocation of aid? Should they just be left to the, um, to the national authorities who may indeed enable these imbalances to persist? Thank you.”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• “Yes. Thank you very much. Chairman. Vice President Stefan, thank you for being with us today. And thank you very much to Mrs. Farron for asking her question. But there was also an interesting question from the EPP group. We clearly have a problem with protecting, uh, copyright and intellectual property rights. Now, a good balance was achieved between the need for innovation and the protection of intellectual property. There's a there's a new set of guidelines for good use of AI, but it seems like you're going to withdraw all of it. What are you going to do in that case to protect our intellectual and cultural sovereignty on our continent. How are we not going to simply hand that over to foreign actors who are going to speculate on the basis of our continent's intellectual production? And another brief question that's already been touched upon on the omnibus proposals for the Mid-caps in particular, we have serious concerns about the package that you're going to put forward on what actual data did you base this proposal on? You get the impression that it's basically just invented out of thin air. How did you create this new small mid-caps category, and what European legislation do you actually plan to amend on that basis?”
  Intellectual property rights (IPR)
• “Europe's farmers are dying. Our farms are disappearing. Farmers are collapsing under the weight of indebtedness and agro Food companies and agrochemical companies are exploiting their labor. At the same time, the European Commission is getting ready to finish them off. Ursula von der Leyen wants to not only fuse the two pillars of the cap, but on top of that, she wants to dilute it down in a budget that will get rid of the specific nature of the European agriculture budget. Together with the EPP, she's plotting to push through the Mercosur treaty. But that's not what we want. We need a cap that ensure that there's better distribution and fairness, that would support nature and encourages virtuous practices. We need to break the monopolies of the industrial mastodons that are exploiting farmers, imposing prices that do not respect their work. We need a Europe for farmers where their work is respected and can earn them a living. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Merci, merci.Thank you. Good evening, Commissioner Séjourné. I'll let you get settled in, colleagues. All of you here this evening. Today, this parliament is sending an historic signal. The era of the disposable will come to an end. Um, this is an additional mandate with regard to consumption, which is addressed to the European Commission. I'll start with a subject which wasn't really contained in the report, but with my colleague, the rapporteur. We wanted to draw attention to these points firstly. Establishing a framework or prohibiting fast fashion. These are products produced at the other end of the world, which are worn three times and then thrown away, are suffocating. Uh, local, uh, chains. Um, uh, it is unfair and suicidal. And also focus on taxation, which is penalising sustainability doesn't directly concern the Imco committee, but we wanted to introduce we wanted to attract your attention to this, um, repairing, uh, often costs more than buying new a cobbler pays more VAT than a fast fashion website. So we call for reduced harmonised VAT for repairs and second hand goods. This text also acknowledges the strategic value of sustainable economy. Maria extends the life of telephone. So Lucas and Hamburg is, uh, prolong the life of other goods. Um, these are products which are local and are not being relocated. Um. Him. Now, I'm sure you will be focusing on the following and proposing legislation. The issue of digital passports. Um, this is part of our strategy to protect markets, to protect, to protect consumers, and to promote repairs.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “Thank you very much. High food prices are not inevitability. They are a consequence of an agri food system, which is unfair, where consumers are paying the price three times over. They're paying when they buy the food. They're paying taxes in order to fund agricultural subsidies. And then they're also paying for the environmental and health damage that was being caused by the industry. These are hidden costs of pollution, lack of biodiversity, illness which stems from bad nutrition and the level that this has risen to is very alarming. Things are not actually improving at all. We ought to be able to provide fair prices, both for farmers and for consumers, and we therefore need to have a proper model. This means that we need to change the balance of power, which at the moment plays right into the hands of the giants in the market and big distribution companies, and fails to put farmers and consumers at the heart of the model. If we did that, it would be good for our land, our consumers, our farmers and the environment. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Merci beaucoup. Thank you. Chair. Thank you to everyone for the participation. I'd particularly like to thank the shadows for this report. We had a first two shadows meeting yesterday that allowed us to go through the different topics, and I think there was a common commitment from that. And we need to adapt our framework to the transitions that we're going through now. Obviously, there are certain differences across groups, but there's some important points of convergence in relation to the direction that we want to, uh, um, get to and role of economic operators. There's a consensus which wants to clarify a legal liability by designating an actor with an agent within the EU. Uh, without putting this on to repairers. We need to make sure we're in line with certain other tax, for example, the e-commerce tax. This is absolutely vital. We need to be careful about that. Now on the on the digital product passport. It's one of the key points of this report. Everyone recognizes it. Use. The vast majority of people supported the extension to all products with extensive, uh, gradual progression before for second hand products, and we don't want to this to go forward at the same speed as for new products. We want to favour repairability and the life cycle of a product, and we want to support the circular economy as well. We want to structure this part of the economic sector in a careful way, and there's lots of SMEs involved in the circular economy, and it's a part of the economy that can't be, um, out, uh, delocalized as well. Now, in relation to VAT reductions for a reused or repaired product is something that we need to work on now. Taxation need to support circular economy. We need to make sure that repairing something does not make it more expensive than buying something new.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “Thank you. Thank you, Vice President. Thank you for this debate. I wanted to send out a strong signal to all the shadow rapporteurs, uh, those who have been involved. Uh, Mr.. Mr.. Mr.. Grossman, it really was a pleasure to collaborate with you to work towards a consensus. Mr. president, there aren't any amendments. That's quite unusual. So this is quite a clear message from the European Parliament. So I've got a couple of takeaways. What we heard a couple of times is that we have to do away with unfair competition. We need to put an end to it. So we need a form of protectionism, intelligent protectionism, to protect our countries and our economy. And then there's this issue of action. Yes. Now is a time to take action because we've got businesses closing down. We've got sectors being damaged by unfair competition. These are sectors will struggle to resuscitate. So we really need to take action. There are concerns which didn't necessarily emerge during our cooperation collaboration on this about new requirements, new obligations. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about existing requirements. And then we've got standardisation. We've got the digital product passport unifying all of the requirements in one document”
  Product passport
• “Good afternoon colleagues. Commissioner. Madam president, Mr. President. And so apparently, this debate was too long to stay for the whole duration. We do have a problem, Commissioner. We have a problem because the proposed architecture is a direct attack and the biggest backsliding when it comes to the federalism in Europe. It's really castrating Parliament's powers, and it represents a step back in terms of a drive for more federalism. Now then, there's going to have unilateral power given to the European Commission to grant or not funds to the member states. Now, perhaps you're feeling nostalgic about times gone by. We're not. And so this is something of a Franken budget where everything's just mixed together and into one jumbled pot. And it's techno technocratic and bureaucratic and at every level. So we still have time to fix this. We need a federal leap forward, not a leap back. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Therefore, we need to have clear legislation applied in practice, which gives a boost to our European companies and SMEs to make sure that they are they are competitive in the face of unfair competition that they are currently experiencing. And there's also the question of a responsible third party for companies outside of the European Union. That's an that's a major challenge. It's important to make sure that not only is there a third party who is responsible, and that there are the means to issue sanctions with money involved as well, financial penalties that can be put into a place, because we've seen that there are letterbox companies as well operating. So we need to make sure we have people individual in the European Union. And this is something that we're trying to to counter. And I would like to thank all of the colleagues for their work. Thank you for the very constructive contributions that they have made.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Thank you. President. The European Union is powerful, but it is threatened by predators. There is absolutely no reason for us to accept taking part in a tech race where there is. Predators wish to impose their rules on us. If we were to accept, to bow to the standards of the Chinese and American oligarchs and their imperialist tendencies is not what we should be doing. European innovation, um, is, uh, has to establish rules on the basis of our values. We have powerful tools in our hands the AI act, DMA, DSA, amongst others. Deregulation is the condition for our competitiveness. If we take a look at our infrastructures and standards, these have to be further developed. We have to focus our investment capacity here. We want a robust, resilient infrastructure where progress and development serves as our needs. The only race that we should be in is one that guarantees our digital sovereignty and democratic sovereignty in the European Union. Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Excuse me, Mr. President. I do apologize. President. Dear colleagues, the issue of consumer rights is one of sovereignty as well as security for the European Union. Millions of dangerous and noncompliant products flood into Europe via online platforms. So bargain basement prices hide a brutal reality. So buy things quickly, throw them away quickly. And, we are seeing prices rising and the prices paid by our consumers, by workers who are exposed to these risks and jobs that are sacrificed, and our sovereignty, which has been thrown out of the window. And there are a number of economic powers who are behind all of this, imposing their rules on us and circumventing all of the rules and regulations in a quest for profit and to the detriment of the public interest. Whereas in fact, the EU should be based on security, sustainability and social justice. The Digital Services Act law should now put an end to these fraudulent practices, as well as digital manipulation and impunity for the platforms. Without a circular economy, there will never be any kind of justice for consumers, and that is why legislation on the circular economy should break with this idea of a disposable consumer society. So protecting consumers is not about protecting the market. Rather it's about protecting citizens and economic and geopolitical security.”
  Liability for online marketplaces
• “Thank you very much. Madam president, Commissioner. Colleagues, the attention economy has decided to make our children and to guinea pigs and their using platforms and algorithms that pursue our children. But all of us, in fact, to break into our brains and find out what our emotions are. They are trading in our most intimate feelings Now, if you leave all of this on the shoulders of the parents and families to deal with these toxic algorithms, I don't think that's enough. That leaves a risk open, the risk of taking responsibility off the shoulders of those who really are guilty parties here, the companies and the algorithms in the European Union. If we want to really protect our children, we have to take back control over the algorithms. So, Madam President. Beyond the text we'll be voting on tomorrow, we need to move away from this idea of deregulating further with the digital omnibus, for example, which wants to take burdens away from companies. No, we need to do the job of protecting us from these international companies.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “Thank you very much. I just wanted to give everyone a few seconds. Colleagues, since the last time we met. Negotiations have made progress with a serious and constructive attitude prevailing. The last committee meeting allowed us to make progress on a number of important compromises, especially on the technical rules and evaluation procedure for conformity. These compromise compromises aim to make the framework more compatible and adapted to today, having a robust set of rules in place that are open to governance and to ensure that it becomes a real lever to serve the climate, consumers and also the sovereignty of our European economy. We would like to consolidate a strategic approach to standardization, which reinforces the high quality references that we have in the EU on the international stage, and which remedies a certain number of shortcomings in the current certification system. This is tangible progress that has been made, and I would like to thank the work that has been done by our teams. There is a good dynamic, and I believe that this text can become a real success story for the Parliament by reaffirming the fact that the internal market is not simply an area of free circulation, but is a driving force between ecological and industrial transformation to benefit our economic sovereignty, to localize industrial jobs, and to strengthen our network of SMEs.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Mr. president. Thank you. Colleagues, threats to the freedom of the press are building up. That's why we've set up this European Act on to protect the media. So press independence is brought into question through regimes, Offices which are strangling it even within the EU. Also oligarchs trying to take control of European media. Threatened also by billionaires from the extreme right in Europe, as in my country, France. With, uh, with the group. And that's why public media services are absolutely crucial to combat this element. In France, once again, we have a minister of culture who, unfortunately, wants to set up a big public media body to better control them. I would ask that article five, which ensures the independence of public media, should really be implemented. Because this threat is spreading in our countries, we need to be able to count on good quality free media which will inform our citizens.”
  EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
• “Thank you. Chair. I'll be speaking French. I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague, Miss Peter Hansen. Thank you, rapporteur, for your overview. And thank you to the colleagues as well. We share the general goal of making it easier for EU law to be applied. However, the current proposal goes counter to the goals that CSR and CSDp. Don't have any impact assessment based on real data or based on experiences. They are just a response to pressure from certain companies who are complaining about being exposed for abusive practices in their value chains, and that now need to shoulder responsibilities for that. All of the different legitimate questions were and were raised and could have been addressed during the implementation period, either through delegated acts or other instruments. And our group, however, commends the positive discussions we've had with the reporter rapporteur over the last few weeks, and we hope that within this committee we'll be able to work positively to make our voice heard during the discussion. A few key points that we will be focusing on as part of our work are the following. Firstly, we want to maintain the initial the initial scope of CSR while remaining open to targeted administrative provisions relating to larger SMEs, where there might be the reasonable introduction of the first few standards for report writing. Secondly, we think that lightning, the administrative burden, is possible. By reviewing the different obligations on the shoulders of auditors, in line with the initial position adopted by the Euro Committee and the European Parliament on Csrd. Thirdly, we refuse the de facto limitation of the value chain to those at the first level. Such a measure would go against the principle of due diligence as established by the OECD guidelines. It would make the provision completely useless. Fourth and final point. We would also add the changes proposed relating to civil liability as part of CCPs tripled. It would deprive citizens of effective access to justice and would de facto guarantee impunity of companies. Thank you.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Thank you. Chair. I will speak in French. Thank you very much. For his reports and his I would like. A few questions and by a. Report. On the issue of presented as a simple technical evolution of artistic creation. Of the Parliament of Color. I think that it is not at all in this evening with the structural modification of the business model around culture, with a project of the creation of artistic creation, with authors and authors of creation. So here we are in a much deeper rupture technological evolution and therefore the measure of rupture and in the secrecy of business NE would be and an alibi to allow the black box for the creators and the works. Of Mr. Brando. It is not the first time on a problem on a problem in fact for me, I have a political problem when a problem technology to make the right of technology and its own technology to ensure the right and it is a subject. Can't do technology sorry. It is not. Really questioned on the history. General and the interest of the authors as if the principle not represented for society. Authors and their position. The baker's right, when it is the general right of society, cannot make an exception in cultural matters in the rights of workers and workers in the name of a hypothetical general interest of this opposition, which is not reflected in the thinking we see. Thank you, Mr. President.”
  EU and national cultural identities
• “Thank you very much. Are we speaking French? Commissioner, dear colleagues. Well, it was time for us to stop just complaining about something that we've actually helped cause, this ultra liberal policy with a completely open market, abundantly open. Well, it means we have a lack. We should be looking at growth, and the result is we have a recession. And for decades, we've had the deindustrialization of our territory. We need to draw a line under that. So I'm very happy with the commissioners taking this initiative. I welcome it. Commissioner, we need to be clear. We need to be clear what we're getting at here. We need to make sure that we have objectives which are very precise. I am in favor of green protectionism. Now people will say, yes. Protectionism is not good, but it is. It is when it imposes virtuous standards, environmentally speaking and also socially speaking. We need a sovereignty of our production chains because if we reindustrialize, but at the same time, we let China and others essentially flood our market, then we're not going to keep our head above water. So we need to ensure that there is a form of circularity here from the conception of the product because these are jobs which can't be delocalized. Then in terms of the Commission's proposal, this Bio European Act, but with 80, 90 countries that are outside of the European Union. No. It's impossible. You can't do that by European act. It should be a by European act. It should be the 27 member states. If we want to have exceptions, okay. We'll have a look at that case by case basis. But that's it should be opt in, not opt out. So, commissioner, I hope that we will be able to make progress on this issue. We should not add complexity where actually we need clarity. Thank you.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market · EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure · "Buy European" provisions
• “Thank you very much, chair. Anna. Dear colleagues. So indeed, we've got an initiative report on a new legislative framework, which is a pillar of our policy for non-food conformity. And this dates back to 2008. And since then, we've had legislation on sustainability and digital matters. It's a good idea now is to provide Parliament's opinion on what we would like to see when it comes to bringing things up to date and aligning them with the current context. Now, I just wanted to talk about my proposals for the report, and I'd like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for any proposals. Now, first off, I think it's always good to be creative in our thinking. It's an initiative report, so it's good to give the commission some indications as to whether or not, uh, should be a legislative report. I would call on the commission to look at the feasibility of banning products from brands that are associated with fast fashion. Also, when it comes to digital digital platforms and influencers. So there are four reasons for this. Fast fashion Passion, destroys the environment, creates huge amounts of waste, destroys the planet and contributes hugely to greenhouse gas emissions. That's a huge problem in and of itself. But then it's also detrimental to the interest of consumers because it exercises downward pressure on prices, which leads to bad quality products which might even be harmful to health. Fast fashion also leads to unfair competition with our own. Manufacturers, producers and SMEs because it means that our value chain has to compete with bad quality, cheap products. And this has an impact on actors stakeholders from the solidarity These sectors who collect used products.”
  Circular economy
• “So if we want to summarize briefly, the idea is that we need to clarify everything. So at the center of our topic we have copyright legislation. So political cooperation is not there to take apart this legislation. We have to see how to impose the respective copyright for the AI producers. We have to work on having rules that are respected so that people have guidelines. This means we need transparency. This means we need to organize a licensing market because at present there is a capacity to opt out. But these aren't effective. So what is happening? It is not a free market. We're in a market that's not a market with some people who are stealing and where other people are being stolen. So we have to defend people who are being stolen. That's what the law is. It's not the law of the jungle. Now, I understand that some groups love American multinationals and are lobbying us here, but I don't think there will be a majority in Parliament in favour of this position. So what do we do? We need to clarify article four. Now, if we think that article four is not applicable to generative AI, then we need to clarify how we will protect copyright with generative AI. This will make us strong and it will allow us to innovate. It's a very interesting debate. Thank you Vos for the way you are leading this debate. I think we will clarify those who want to protect copyright and those who don't, and then we'll see how things will proceed. It will be a very interesting debate and I'm looking forward to it indeed.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. I wanted to, um, just, uh, support what Mr. Gazi has said as he set out. Quite clearly, we are looking at a situation which is is just questionable from an institutional point of view, but, uh, particularly difficult, uh, politically as well. We can't just trample over other institutions for, um, personal political reasons. That's not something that's acceptable. There is a path for legislative text there text that should be voted on by our institution, the European Parliament. The fact that someone has decided for political reasons or something, we can just restore or remove this and withdraw it. It's completely unacceptable. We need to be extremely clear. It's a point of institutional order here. We need to set this up clearly to the Commission and also to colleagues who, uh, just want to undermine commitments that we have already built. If part of our institutions just unilaterally wants to destroy the institutional process, then why are we still discussing these things together? This is a very, very serious precedent. It's something that needs to be addressed only to make sure that it doesn't happen again.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions