Ondřej KNOTEK

Policy topics Ondřej KNOTEK is active on

What Ondřej KNOTEK has said (61)

• 2026-06-17 “(15:00:53 – 15:02:07): Thank you, mister chairman, mister, commissioner. It is realistic, to increase the electrification of some industrial processes, and also heat supply. But the affordable price of electricity in capacities, meaning meeting demands, is a key condition. And let's be honest, the demand will grow through AI, cars, heat pumps. It has been mentioned already. So but before we, we'll have the required install capacity in renewable and nuclear, we will use both local and imported fossil fuels. That's it. Yeah. And the 1 example, to produce 1 megawatt hour of coal lignite electricity in the EU cost €10, but we add through carbon, allowances, emission allowances, €70 more. So, to do more and enable more electrification in the EU with affordable electricity, we must, for some given time, also cut the prices of coal and gas electricity. So I would like to call you, mister commissioner, to reintroduce, back the free allocations for the electricity producer from the coal, lignite, and gas until the time that we will not need these forces, sources anymore. Thank you very much. We move to the next speaker colleague, Matias Basik.”
  Fossil fuels
• 2025-09-25 “P-003737/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The benchmarking is a legal obligation under Article 29(2) of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 which sets a legal deadline (no later than end of June 2025). It was adopted by the Commission on 22 May 2025 and entered into force on 26 May 2025. The Implementing Regulation has been prepared in accordance with the empowerment granted according to Article 29 of the EUDR, and the Commission believes that it has not exceeded its implementing powers. An official reply from the Commission to the European Parliament resolution has been transmitted 2 . The Commission presented a proposal to amend the EUDR in order to reduce the load on the EUDR Information System and ease the administrative burden for economic operators, while maintaining the Regulation’s environmental integrity. On 4 December 2025, the co-legislators agreed on the revised EUDR 3 . The new date of entry into application will be 30 December 2026 for all companies except for most micro- or small operators, for which it will be 30 June 2027. For micro- or small operators already covered by the EU Timber Regulation 4 , the entry into application will be 30 December 2026. 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 2 https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file?reference=2025/2739(RSP). 3 Regulation (EU) 2025/2650 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards certain obligations of operators and traders, OJ L, 2025/2650, 23.12.2025. 4 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market, OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, pp. 23– 34.”
  Trade impact on forests · Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• 2025-09-18 “E-003616/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission organised a workshop on the assessment and mitigation of systemic risks identified under the Digital Services Act (DSA) on 7 May 2025. 1 Although initially planned as a public event, at the request of service providers the workshop was held behind closed doors and under the Chatham House Rule. The workshop discussions were facilitated by fictional scenarios. These scenarios did not represent official Commission positions but served as conversation starters for participants to discuss service providers’ risk management processes. In the EU, the offence of public incitement to violence or hatred, known as illegal hate speech, is defined in the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA 2 and its transposition into national law. The DSA does not define illegal content, it refers to national or EU law, and the illegality of individual content online is established by competent national authorities and courts. The DSA requires content moderation systems to ensure that content deemed illegal content according to national or EU law is removed while safeguarding the right to freedom of expression for all concerned parties. Trusted Flaggers play an important role in this mission. As nationally vetted entities, they possess special expertise in identifying illegal content. However, while the DSA requires providers to process their notices with priority, it does not oblige them to confirm Trusted Flaggers’ assessments. The determination of illegality on their services remains fully within the providers’ purview, and ultimately to the courts. The DSA safeguards freedom of expression through various redress and transparency mechanisms. Based on service providers’ transparency reports, these mechanisms have already led to the reinstatement of millions of pieces of content previously removed in error 3 . As such, the DSA plays a crucial role in promoting a fair, free and safe online environment. 1 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-holds-workshop-platforms-and-civil-societyassessment-online-risks. 2 Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, pp. 55–58). 3 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-brings-transparency#ecl-inpage-lsetrsdp.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2025-02-25 “E-000838/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission adheres strictly to its transparency obligations. Information about EU fund recipients, including Czech beneficiaries, is published in the Financial Transparency System 1 . The Commission proactively shares the objectives and outcomes of funded projects on the Funding & Tenders Portal 2 . Interest representatives are required to report their lobbying activities and disclose key funding sources, including any contributions exceeding EUR 10 000 and representing more than 10% of their total budget, in their registrations in the Transparency Register 3 . Operating grants under the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) are awarded competitively. Applicants submit proposals that include the description of their work programmes, in areas indicated in the LIFE Regulation 4 . This work programme is annexed to the grant agreement. It may mention, among other applicant’s activities, advocacy activities. The Commission does not prescribe the specific activities in the applicants’ work programmes, nor does it instruct them to support any specific positions. The Commission has not identified irregularities in LIFE operating grants. Nonetheless, agreements involving activities directed at EU institutions, even if they do not breach the legal framework, may entail reputational risks for the EU. To mitigate these risks, the Commission has issued guidance 5 addressed to all its services, clarifying which activities should not be mandated as a condition for EU financing. Green Deal legislation has been subject to public consultations, in line with Better Regulation principles 6 . All stakeholders had the opportunity to present their opinion and positions. Additionally, the Commission regularly reviews existing legislation based on Better Regulation principles. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/index.html 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/home 3 https://transparency-register.europa.eu/index_en 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/783/oj/eng 5 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/guidance-fundingdev-impl-monit-enforce-of-eu-law_en.pdf 6 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation_en”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• 2025-02-04 “E-000487/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has not recently proposed any new requirements for wood-burning stoves or a phase-out of biomass stoves. Nevertheless, the Commission is engaged in an open dialogue with industry and Member States on how to improve the environmental performance of woodburning stoves. The Commission is legally required to undertake a review of existing measures, for example regarding solid fuel local space heaters and solid fuel boilers pursuant to the Ecodesign Directive. Following the established procedures, all relevant stakeholders, including Member States, are invited to share their views. It is important to note that any revised ecodesign requirements will not apply retroactively. Revised requirements, if any, will as always be introduced after reasonable lead times. During the Commission’s review of the ecodesign requirements for solid fuel local space heaters, it has been found that real-life pollutant emissions, mainly particulate matter (PM) from wood-burning stoves, remain very high. PM is responsible for a high number of premature deaths and bronchitis cases in the EU 1 , including among children. This amounts to significant damage costs, which could be substantially reduced by applying state-of-the-art technology to reduce emissions as it is also stressed in the Zero Pollution Action Plan. The Commission will continue to ensure that any revised ecodesign measure is carefully assessed to avoid any significant impact on consumers and contribute effectively to our energy goals. 1 https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/harm-to-human-health-from-air-pollution-2024”
  Ecodesign & durability · Air quality policy
• 2025-01-29 “E-000403/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The Commission regrets that the United States is leaving the Paris Agreement, which is the most comprehensive global framework for fighting climate change. The Commission will stay the course on the Green Deal as the EU’s growth strategy and deploy climate diplomacy to ensure that other major emitters also show ambition in reducing greenhouse gas emissions when presenting their Nationally Determined Contributions ahead of COP 30 in Brazil. The Commission’s focus will be on supporting and creating the right conditions for companies to decarbonise and strengthen their competitiveness. This means investing and ensuring access to affordable, sustainable and secure energy supplies and raw materials, including through the Clean Industrial Deal. The Clean Industrial Deal 1 , adopted on 26 February 2025, together with the planned Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act in autumn 2025, will reinforce the business case for the decarbonisation of industry in Europe. The Clean Industrial Deal in particular focuses on energy-intensive industries and the clean tech sector. It includes initiatives to lower energy prices, develop lead markets for EU-made decarbonised products, and leverage circularity for the availability of raw materials. These measures will foster the clean transition and contribute to prosperity of EU companies and citizens. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9db1c5c8-9e82-467b-ab6a905feeb4b6b0_en?filename=Communication%20-%20Clean%20Industrial%20Deal_en.pdf”
  EU-US trade relations · Climate efforts
• 2025-01-27 “P-000353/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not comment on press articles. The conduct and organisation of elections are the competence and responsibility of the Member States, in accordance with their constitutional and legislative rules, subject to EU law and their international obligations. National competent authorities and courts have the primary responsibility of ensuring compliance with these rules. The rule of law, respect for fundamental rights and democracy are founding values of the EU as provided in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU). The Commission, together with all other EU institutions and the Member States, is responsible under the Treaties for upholding these values. This includes the power for the Commission, where relevant, to initiate the procedure referred to in Article 7 TEU.”
  Rule of law and democracy in the EU (political compass) · EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear Commissioner, on your clean industrial deal, this is not an attempt to save our industry. It is your attempt to save the Green Deal and its climate goals. The goals that perhaps in 2019 made some sense, but now we know they are not realistic nonrealistic climate goals, but also unrealistic technological ambitions. The most expensive emissions allowances in the world. These are the roots of existential problems of the European industry. And what do you do? You close your eyes before the actual problem and you want the European industry to do the same. Your proposal of a better Green Deal will only push out more industry away from Europe, and unfortunately, it will not help the climate. Dear Commissioner, if you really want to help the industry and if you want to help now, please submit a proposal which will immediately and substantially make the emission allowances cheaper. And instead of a new 2040 target, please step down from the 2030 target. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Could you maybe advise us what methodology are you about to use? Um, to, uh, to avoid premature conclusions? My second question is on the scope of the European Court of Auditors. Uh, of course, the ECA is doing its best, but of course, cannot cover everything. Uh, so maybe do you see any areas which would, let's say, still not be fully covered by ECA but still represent some risks? So basically the question is about if you see any topics which would deserve more attention from the European Court of Auditors. And my third and last question is, uh, let's say a little bit forward looking. Uh, we are entering the era where artificial intelligence starts to be used on a daily basis. So, maybe what the role of the artificial intelligence you see in the work of European Court of Auditors. And once again, many thanks for coming to the Budgetary Control Committee. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “The European chemical industry and chemicals play a key role for EU citizens and EU economy. Therefore, one would expect that EU policies will have ambitions to boost the EU based chemical industry. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Eu chemical industry is suffering and without substantial changes in course of last year's energy, climate and industrial policies, the EU chemical industry will not survive in Europe. And maybe, therefore, I am pleased to see three negotiated files related to EU chemicals ecosystem with positive effect on transparency, predictability, information access or assessment. Process unification. Common Data Platform one substance one assessment. Better coordination among related agencies. And last but not least, more and less European Commission. These are just a few examples of positive signals. Also, industry's concerns on sensitive information disclosure has been positively addressed during the trilogue negotiations. What is not positive in the eyes of a patriot is that the final text allows the commission to update the concentration limit via delegated acts, and this is not a good direction forwards. But anyway, the world is not perfect, but in general the outcomes of trilogues are good message for suffering EU chemical industries. So thank you for that. Thank you Mr. Rapporteur. Thank you colleagues.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Of course, I appreciate the domestic sources of power, but if you decide to have no oil, then you will have no tarmac. So maybe it's better to diversify imports from different places, but without oil or without oil import. You will not have any roads. So what is what can you say about that?”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. You keep repeating the same mistakes. You keep setting unrealistic goals. You keep pushing people to expensive and unreliable technologies. You're not interested at all in the fact that the public isn't interested in these. Instead of listening to the public, you keep regulating, increasing prices or prohibiting. I'll tell you what making old, often fossil technologies more expensive. You will drive them to a quicker end, but you will not provide the new alternative clean technologies. Production, including emissions, will shift outside of Europe. Europeans will be poorer and the climate will not be saved. Dear Commissioner, you and the whole Commission kindly wake up and stop repeating the same mistakes while there still is time. Thanks.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “The follow up is clear. Germany has invested a lot into the renewables, and still they have on average 20 times, 15 times higher carbon footprint in electricity production than France with nuclear. So basically today they are the same as Czech Republic with coal and nuclear and with nuclear France is much better. So if you invest only into renewables, you will end up like in Germany, you will have gas dependency and still very, very high carbon footprint. Is that a solution? Where is the decarbonisation with the renewables?”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Mr. Commissioner. Also, let me welcome you on behalf of Patriots to the committee. We definitely appreciate your open cooperation with this committee. And we have recognized that many of the elements that are discussed here in the committee are further turned into some of your proposals, and this is a good way forward. My question is on the bio act Biotechnologies and the competitiveness in that regard. You have already mentioned a lot. The thing is clear. The EU is losing is not catching up with the United States and with the Asia in in innovation, in scale up in general. You introduced some of the elements that you want to address to improve the situation. My question is on the financing. It's clear that in the next MFF there will be a dedicated item to it. But we need immediate investments actually elements to attract the investments. So you mentioned something about 10 million or €10 billion to be available as soon as possible. Maybe if you could elaborate a little bit more on that. My second question is EPP already mentioned, but I'm happy to repeat because I would really like to underline it. And this is on the European Waste Water Treatment Directive and the impact, especially on the generics producers. This is something extremely, extremely serious. I know that it is not primarily your DG dealing with that, but on behalf of the commission, if you are able to, to say a little bit more because really the generics production is in danger if we do not change it. Thank you.”
  EU support for bioeconomic applications
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Vice President, thank you for coming to the hearing. I have also. One of the questions is on ETS. And yes, there have been a number of initiatives and letters coming not only from the state representatives, but also from the strategic sectors across the EU and across the Member States, not because they would not be fan of having some carbon price, but because they are questioning the architecture of the system the way it is working today, the performance, and this is a clear evidence that the system we have today, the way it is set, works against the people, against competitiveness, against autonomy, and even more, maybe against the climate as such, because the minimum what we need is not there. What we need is a predictable price of ETS, one on a global competitive level, and the realistic benchmarks for the free allocation for energy intensive sectors. And this is not there. So could you please give us some assurance that, at least in this direction, you will consider doing something? And my second question is again on the nuclear it is very important topic. We have heard the last week that it was a failure to abandon nuclear. So the logical outcome is on EU level to put it on a equal or almost equal footing as a clean source. So I believe you could have some positive promises for EU citizens in this regard. Thank you, Madam Vice President.”
  Nuclear energy · Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “(15:53:33 – 15:55:47): Thank you, Mister Chairman, colleagues, and welcome to the committee here Director General. Thank you for your very extremely positive presentation. It was basically like if you won in the lottery. But actually, we do not share your happiness here when it comes to this package. Actually, we are quite disappointed with this commission package, and we do not see a real simplification in this package. Our major concern relates to the Annex 1, the scope, where we propose to add up to 17 new products. And the impact on related economic operators wasn't sufficiently considered according to us, neither on the capacity of the national authorities to perform inspections, and we really see increased bureaucracy, really increased. On the concrete products, we don't see the smart to include products derived from palm oil, like soaps, glycerols, esters, or some forms of acids, etcetera, because this would negatively hit the European chemical industry. And don't forget that the European chemical industry is already vastly hit by the consequences of some destructive green policies. On the process, that's my question. Where do you see the legal basis that the commission has a mandate to add the products via the delegated acts as in the article 34 1 5? If you can elaborate on this, please. And my second question, this is a topic that we will never forget, until you do it, until you deliver. And I know that on the fourth category, low risk countries, the commissioner Oswald repeatedly said that she is not able, but we don't take no as an answer. Yeah. The commission must be bold here and find a way how to do it and not come to the parliament and say, sorry. We don't know how to do it. It will never work. It must work because the fourth category is important. It is fair. Thank you very much.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “This is always the debate, the debate we have. So, for example, in my country, there is a lot of coal sources and the grids are fully prepared for this. But because of the high ETS price, we are forced to close them earlier than is necessary. If we use them a few years longer, like 5 to 10 years, we would not need to import so much, so much gas for the gas price. Yes, of course it's volatile, I agree, but we can diversify. There are really. And to diversify, you need long term contracts. And with methane regulation, for example, you don't need to have long term contracts pushing the price down. So it's about the speed of decarbonisation. I do not question the decarbonisation as such, but the pathway we are doing it to ambitiously.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you Mister Chairman, Madam Commissioner. On the World Mental Health Day we are reminded that mental health is not just a medical issue, it is also a social and economic one. To accent topics of mental health and well-being of young people, we reaffirm our commitment to strengthen national health care systems through reducing inequalities and through advancing towards complex health coverage. We further agree to ensure the access to safe youth and child friendly health care including mental and digital health across Europe. Too many citizens face stress from insecure job, rising living costs, housing difficulties and also social isolation. These pressures deepen inequalities and put the most vulnerable at even greater risk. Therefore improving mental health must be a fundamental priority and we call for continual and systematic action in this area. Many thanks.”
  EU policy on mental health
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dear colleagues. First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr. Anttila, for his responsible work on the draft opinion. In the light of ongoing budget discussion and the growing pressure on our health care systems. We have submitted a set of targeted amendments aimed at making the EU's health funding more coherent, equitable and future oriented. So let me briefly introduce some of our proposals. We propose a reinforcement of the funding of the European Union by supporting public private partnership and accelerating digital innovation in the diagnostics and treatments. These are essential to modernizing our healthcare systems and delivering long term value for patients. We also proposed stronger support for the pharmaceutical SMEs. These small and mid-sized companies are essential drivers of innovation, especially in rare diseases and medical technologies. Our amendments call for a dedicated EU mechanism to help them scale up and strengthen our health resilience. Another amendment addresses the need for greater investment in the in advanced transformative therapies such as cell and gene therapies and engine treatments. These therapies have enormous potential for patients with the few or no existing options, so you must do more to support their development, clinical trials, production capacity and equitable access. Also, we shall not forget this that this is a high tech, high tech industry and it's good for EU economy. And finally, um, I would like to welcome the proposed increase of the EU for health budget. But we must be honest, it remains below the level needed to meet the growing public health demands. Uh, the public, the funding foreseen for the Critical Medicines Act around 80 million over two years. It is not in line with the scale, with the huge importance of the objectives. Stakeholders expect to expect the budgets in the level of billions of euros. So there is also a lot which can be done in this regard. So in short, to conclude, my amendments aim to offer more coherent and strategic approach to the EU health funding. I look forward to continue working together. Thank you.”
  Public and private sectors role in healthcare services
• “Actually, without the coal and steel, we would not be having the debate here. So maybe you could learn something from the European history. It would be nice as well. Yes. And when it when it comes to the prices, you must also understand that if you need to invest a lot into the grid because the consumer does not pay the cost, the price on the market, it pays the final price. So we need to find a balance between the speed of decarbonization and and the reasonable investment. And again, we shall use local sources. In some countries we still have coal. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Honourable colleagues, distinguished representatives of the Commission and fellow Europeans. I would like to address you today as the rapporteur for the climate law. The proposal of the new 2030 emissions reduction binding target. As you know, and as the chair has outlined on behalf of the Patriots for Europe, I have proposed the rejection of the Commission proposal of this new climate target. I would like to assure all of you honourable colleagues that this step was very seriously considered and is supported by a wide range of stakeholders, including both employers and employees. Also, let me underline that the rejection of the new climate target is not an act of activism, as some say. Neither is lacking Constructiveness. It is responsible and justified decision on direction to take in Europe in these days. Now allow me to share some ideas behind the rejection of the proposal. The global perspective EU, with only 6% share of global emissions, has already two legally binding targets, accompanied by by a robust set of measures like fit for 55 taxonomy and etc.. Simply, EU decided for a path based on overregulation, taxation and ideologically based redistribution. Other major global economies apply much more practical, flexible or even more market based approach. Their level of commitments for emissions reductions is much weaker compared to the EU legally binding approach.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you president, dear colleagues, Mr. Commissioner, I naively thought that the aim of the Affordable Energy Action Plan was to provide affordable energy. But I tell you something. This plan will achieve no substantial energy cost reductions because you, the European Commission, repeat the same failures as in the past. You are obsessed by energy mix based on renewables. You blindly push forward the electricity market integration. You have disrespect for existing reliable coal industry. You are failing to place nuclear on the forefront of the energy transition in parallel to renewables. You egoistically insist on maintaining unsustainable EU climate goals, and you completely ignore what is going on in the USA and in the BRICs countries, and you naively believe that you will mobilise private capital through your bad plan. You will not. And your plan will fail. So if you really want to help Mr. Commissioner cap immediately the ETS price on €30 and instead of bringing new climate targets for 2040, please cancel existing targets for 2030 and 2050. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you chair. Thank you. Dear Mr. Commissioner, Surprisingly, I will maybe start a little bit. A little bit. Positively so. There are some positive elements in your speech. Your thoughts on the grids going in a good direction. I welcome the SMR points and also the idea on lowering taxes. Yes this is this is a good time to lower taxes, but you will not be surprised that since your hearing as the Commissioner candidate, there are still elements that I point on and you are ignoring them a little bit. So when we when it comes to the state aid rules, we need the nuclear. Without unnecessary restrictions and not only for MSR and also to include, under some conditions, coal and gas. It is really needed. Also ETS one huge effect on the price. We must have drastic changes. It will hurt, but it is necessary. The price must be below €30. No debate. And the ETS two to be postponed as long as possible. Also there is a. Mr. Commissioner, I am talking to you. Please do not share with your colleague. Also there is a number of legislation that have impact on the prices of gas, for example, the methane regulation or directive, or also the do no significant harm criteria for the gas. And maybe we need more diversified gas. So it is not true that everything you put forward is wrong. But I am afraid many of the things you put forward is wrong, because I am afraid you are repeating the same failure, and this is that you believe that you can simply close the fossil fossil sources without having a stable replacement, and I am afraid it will not work. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you for the question. It is clear that there is an oil crisis once for some time. Once in 30 years it can happen and we can manage it. Your solution is to replace one dependency for another dependency. So if you just replace oil by fossil fuels, by renewables only, you will maybe lose the dependency on countries delivering the fossil fuels, but you will increase dependency on countries delivering the metals, for example, or some technologies, some green technologies. So the answer is having diversified, diversified technology and not just focus on one shot.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable colleagues, thank you very much for fruitful debate. It's nice to have in NY. Also a little bit emotional debates. I would try to sum up and and react. So first of all, first of all, I'm grateful that there are other political groups in this House that share the idea that having the 2040 target as the only one in the world today means the first one is maybe not fully necessary. European Union has already two legally binding targets, so climate action is not put in danger, but risking being the first and the only one has a risk on the economy. I would like to address those. And there were some of those that were saying that we as patriots, we are questioning science. Please. Not at all. We don't say that these scientists or that group of scientists is better or worse. We just say that there are. And in the last years there are more and more also other scientific points, and we just don't want to put all eggs into one basket. But we don't question the scientists as such, so please do not use such a strong word. Then of course, the citizens and some of those of you maybe didn't listen carefully. We have clearly addressed the concerns of citizens who lost their relatives or suffered from heat waves or floods, or suffer from drought. But Mr. Gerbrandy, from Renault, said we must be prepared. The effect positive effect of climate mitigation will be, according to the scientists that you quote, will be in decades, maybe even 100 years will take to recover.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues. The proposal is not sufficient enough. We need taxonomy much more in line with technical and global reality. What does this mean? So on the nuclear, the new construction permits and lifetime extensions sunset clauses needs to be prolonged by 25 years at least. And also for nuclear, the fuel lifecycle must be included, which is not going on today. On gas regarding fossil gaseous fuels, the transitional period is also to be prolonged by, again, at least ten years. And second point on gas exclusion of gas transition infrastructure for low carbon gases is also not a good direction forward on the bioenergy, the power generation and heat cooling cogeneration. So for this, the full exclusion of blending with fossil fuels only slows down the transitional process. On the do no significant harm compliance, the IPC or EIA II approvals shall be fully sufficient to demonstrate do no significant harm compliance, and this should be in the legally binding part of the text, which is not today. Last but not least, the element chemical substances. It's not realistic for a company always to track down 100% of necessary information in the value chain. So this also needs to be considered that we do not put aside projects or chemicals just because we don't have 100% of the information. I have mentioned one, two, three, four, five, five elements, but this is just on the top of the iceberg. There are many of them that could be put forward, and this only confirms that the taxonomy and the delegated acts are not covering the reality. We need to open the whole regulation and do the job seriously. Again, thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Commissioner, I am talking to you, Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Commissioner, I am talking to you. Please allow me. Speaker one minute. Mr. Commissioner, you repeatedly stated that the ETS works well. But what do we see? Strategical sectors delay investments due to low investment return. The same strategical sectors shut down and move production outside the EU. The rate of promised new green jobs is negligible compared to the jobs lost in the EU. Coal and lignite power plants are against the logics of today's global situation, forced to close. So if you say that ETS works well, Mr. Commissioner, what is the real goal of ETS? Economically destruction of Europe, high prices of ETS is the enemy of Europe and friends of Europe. Competitors. So, Mr. Commissioner, I have a question on you. Are you a true European patriot or you are a friend of the ETS? Because at the same time, you cannot be both. Thank you very much.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you for your answer. At least for the nuclear. Not fully satisfying, but at least somehow in a good direction. Your comment on the ETS. You are right that in the past, not all the money coming from the ETS were invested back into the sector, but even if they were, they would not cause our industry competitive on the global markets as such. So we have the situation now. If we continue without the change with ETS one which is not for the euro or lower our steel, our cement, our fertilizers, glass, whatever will bankrupt in many parts of Europe in a few years. So you need to act now, fix it or leave. There is no other way. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “And to my positive surprise, the answer has been provided. But nothing, nothing has been answered. There is no clarity, no realistic plan. The proposal by the commission of the new 2030 Climate Target is a failure to conclude. Difficult and unclear global situation. Our competitors do not follow suit. Therefore, new EU target. New EU target would not protect EU citizens facing today. Droughts or heat waves or floods. Eu is not ready for new climate reduction target and the proposal of the target is not mature enough. Today simply is not a good time to impose new binding target that would bring only additional restrictions, bureaucracy, costs for households and burden in European economy. We Patriots for Europe are convinced that rejection of the new climate target is the best option instead of new target. We shall firstly correct mistakes in existing energy and climate policies and reduce the red tape and ideology based restrictions to boost market based solutions. And when it comes when it comes to the climate change, we shall definitely focus and invest into the adaptation to the climate change, not to fast and rapid cost ineffective reduction of the emissions. Dear colleagues, I am looking forward for the exchange and for the work to come in the next weeks. Many thanks.”
  Climate efforts
• “(16:26:19 – 16:27:37): Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, distinguished colleagues, and of course thank you very much experts for your presentations. I would like to know your opinion on the priorities of the Budgetary Control Committee, which is maybe not so sexy but trust me it is also very important. I will skip the general words about strengthening transparency and accountability because in one minute you cannot make a lot, but I would like to know your opinion on the full application of OLAF, Court of Auditors, and public prosecutor competencies across all implementation models of the ECF. Also important, we see the need to ensure adequate geographical balance as well, to direct the technical assistance to less experienced entities as extremely important. We see reinforcing the safeguards against double funding and enhance the traceability of Union fund. And last, with regard to the financing not linked to the costs, it is important to ensure robust justification and clear methodologies for setting and verifying milestones and targets. Basically, the equation is that we need to design the ECF to ensure measurable added value on the EU level and avoid double funding and of course having clear performance indication. Thank you very much.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you for accepting my question. So you can see Europe without imports. So how do you want to build like new roads because you need uh tarmac. And this is made from oil. So how do you what's what's what's your concept?”
  Fossil fuels
• “I will not need Mr. Chairman for minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable colleagues, there is something that is probably shared among all of us. We shall not underestimate the effects of climate change. And we are expected by citizens of European nations to address the climate change in the most effective way. And for this, it is important to understand climate change. To better understand to which extent the mankind is contributing to the current climate change, and to realistically read how other key global players react on climate change. I tell you something. Think six years ago, I was in this committee when the Green Deal was put on the table. A lot has been promised, but not much has been delivered, promised. Sustainable. Delivered. Green, promised. Competitiveness, delivered the industrialisation, promised citizens prosperity, delivered higher bills and new green taxes, promised no impact on national energy mix. But high ETS price destroys stable energy sources. You. Your commission promised to listen to people. Instead, you used people's money to manipulate manipulate public meaning on the Green Deal through NGOs. Finally, EU emissions are decreasing. Wow. Great. But they are moving outside the EU. Your green bad deal doesn't decrease global emissions, But certainly economically destroys Europe. And in this situation, you bring new, ambitious climate targets. How dare you? We patriots, we are convinced that the new target would only worsen the situation. Our climate measures shall comply to the possibilities of individual member States, mostly challenge sectors and of course, regions. And adaptation to the climate change should be our priority, not reducing the emissions. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Definitely. We shall increase the rate of circular economy. And once we are ready and we have the capacities and we have enough Let's say, metals on our European continent to recycle and go without major imports. Then we can cut off the fossil fuels. That's it. That is the strategy of smarter states. They also go outside the fossil fuels. Just the speed is in line with the speed. Speed up of this self-sufficiency, circular economy and other other sources. The problem of this part of this House is that you want to do it right now. That's the problem.”
  Circular economy
• “They grow while EU is on decline. Will the new EU target help? Of course not. The European perspective. Today, high energy prices. Most expensive costs for emissions globally. Essential industries like glass, steel, chemistry, fertilizers or automotive lost competitiveness face bankruptcies and are shutting down factories in the EU households. If we don't change, it will be hit by ETS 2 in 2 years and will permanently pay thousands of euros more every individual year. There are also new urgent priorities in EU, mainly internal and external security and healthcare. Just recently adopted EU climate legislation, namely revision of ETS directive and so-called ban of new cars with combustion engines since 2035 turned out or are turning out to be unsustainable and will require major revision if not full rejection. In this complex situation. The last. What Europe needs is a new climate target that will make things even worse. Now to the commission proposal as such. To be honest, it is naked. Instead of being accompanied by a set of concrete, robust enabling measures, it contains mainly evergreens, empty phrases like affordable energy, technology, neutrality or my favourite, just transition. In my capacity as a reporter, I have asked the commission how these enabling elements would work in real life.”
  Climate efforts
• “Mr. chairman, honourable colleagues, the Cop is an excellent opportunity to share good and bad practices. And as EU is responsible for hardly 7% of global emissions, the Patriots for Europe agree that we shall help the largest emitters of greenhouse gases to reduce their emissions. I was thinking that the best way may be is perhaps to advise them what they should do if they want it to fail in the climate transition, and I started to write the following list. Make your Green Deal a religion, not a flexible economy tool. Do not respect technology neutrality because market based solutions are for kids anyway. Make your carbon price most expensive worldwide. If possible, close as soon as possible. All your stable fossil power plants. And of course, even if you have no adequate replacement available. Do not allow alternative scientific opinion and politicians opposing your religion label as extremists. Don't be at all stressed if your strategical industry leaves your country or continent. And the last and most important, use people money for PR campaigns, saying that all of this is great. And at this stage of writing, I realized how happy I am that this is definitely not the way that we do in Europe. Enjoy the cope, ladies and gentlemen.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and many thanks, honourable colleagues, for your relevant questions. Also, many thanks, Mrs. Maletic, for your concrete answers together with the questionnaire, together with this debate and of course, with the track record of six years within the ICA of Mrs. Maletic. I am convinced that now the members of the Budgetary Control Committee have sufficient level of information to be able to conclude their opinion. So thank you very much. And back to you, Mr. Chairman.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear colleague. Commissioner. It is naive to think that Europe will be able to do without fossil fuels in this century. This means that a green Deal and renewables. Yes, they will be important, but there can't be too many. And people don't want them because they are not cheap. So the climate climate targets of the European Union must be redesigned, and we must use our own resources like our own gas. We must invest in nuclear. And when we have enough of that, then we can think of reducing or stopping fossil fuels. But now we need fertilisers, steel and glass. And we must support them by no ETS. And if you do understand that, it will be detrimental for Europe.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Mr. president. Mr. Commissioner colleagues the debate is so far missing a key element. And this is what needs to be done to reduce economic impact on citizens and businesses in case that EU leaders decided to stop Russian gas imports. And Mr.. Mr. commissioner two actions are missing in your plan recently published. So what is needed. The removal of unrealistic requirements in the EU methane emission regulation to increase the attractiveness of Europe as such for gas imports from third countries. And secondly, to introduce substantial changes in the ETS to reduce the price of carbon allowances. And these two basically simple measures at the end. Would Mr. Commissioner bring three points increased stability of natural gas supplies after the potential phase out, compensate higher gas prices via cheaper ETS and avoid premature closure of reliable coal fired power plants, which is needed in parts of Europe. So this is basically now your homework. You are invited to do it. And of course, don't forget to place nuclear on equal footing with renewables on top of it. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would start with the private message to the rapporteur. In my country, we say that if you drive in a car and you meet many cars going in your line opposite direction, it could also mean that you are going in the wrong direction. And to be very honest, I am extremely disappointed about your report because it's a report for 2024 and beside logical elements that are there coming for 24, you are using elements that more echo your political or even most recent political agenda has nothing to do with 24. And also these are elements that have been, for example, discussed recently in the committee. And don't say that some elements that you mentioned that are not part of 24 are not subject of debate for the committee. Yes, they are. They could be, but not in 24. Report. It rather looks like your professional obsession rather than professionalism. One case for all. You mentioned the starting prime minister of the Czech Republic, but in 24 he was not the Prime Minister. He started to be a prime minister in December 25th. Maybe in next year's report could make sense. And as I said, some elements have been discussed in this committee repeatedly in last months. So there is no reason to mention again. But you do.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Many thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will try to do it in three. Honourable colleagues and warm welcome, Mrs. Maletic, to the Budgetary Control Committee. I definitely appreciate the opportunity to be the rapporteur for the report proposing the renewal of Mrs. Ivana Maletic mandate as a member of the European Court of Auditors. From the written responses to the committee questions as well from her so far work for the European Court of Auditors, Mrs. Maletic has demonstrated in my eyes sufficient knowledge and experience to continue within her mandate. However, to be able to conclude our opinion as a committee, I believe our colleagues will have some direct questions and so will I. Mrs. Malartic, I would like to ask you the following questions. In your written responses, you emphasized that you consider the RF audit to be one of your major successes in the previous mandate, and that you would like to continue working in this area during your next mandate. Can you maybe quote or explain some recommendations from your 22 to 24 RF series that simply demonstrate how these things have been implemented or are to be implemented? You also intend to audit the overall results and impact of the RF, and given the fact that the completion of the milestones is not yet finished.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “52:14 – 09:53:57): Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. I would like to thank the reporters, fellow reporters, and the Commission for proposing at least some easing of the ETS through the MSR. We must see it also in the broader picture. This legislation didn't come in place yet, should start twenty-eight, and we are already correcting likewise we do, we did for reporting, sustainable reporting for CO2 standards for cars, etcetera, etcetera. Maybe we shall in the future do the legislation more properly. But to the point, we should take maximum from this file. Of course, with the six hundred million of allowances in the reserve fund defined in other legislation, we cannot do much music, but at least we shall, we shall try to do so. It is clear that the impact of ETS 2 would be high. It's great it's that this is postponed. We shall ask for more postponed in the other relevant revisions of legislation also to postpone for more. And just allow me to react to Mister Lisa. I don't agree that the member states don't do a lot. I mean, the member states, they know their situation. There are different situations in member states, and simply being the fastest in emission reductions in worldwide will not deliver. So we must be pragmatic, and the ETS 2 must be set as pragmatically as possible, and hopefully at least little bit we will be able to contribute to this pragmatic approach also with this small, small file. Thank you very much.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you, Madam President. Uh, Mr. Sefcovic, I have listened with great attention to your words, and you've mentioned, uh, certain measures that will certainly improve European competitiveness of sufficiency. But what thrills me is that you haven't mentioned the high prices of emission allowances. You want to improve European competitiveness and self-sufficiency and not look at the most expensive emission allowances in the world. If their price doesn't decrease by half, we cannot, uh, we can forget, uh, saving our competitiveness. You have overlooked strategic industries and their employees. Certain countries, uh, say that if we don't act fast, a lot of damage will be done. A lot of harm will be done. Uh, your, uh, permanent understanding of renewable sources of energy as flawless and perfect is very dangerous. It's not only mistaken. Uh, if this, uh, was the case, the market would take care of itself. So it's nice that you want to save Europe, but you will not succeed if you will not be able to admit that you have committed certain errors and you will try to get them right, it will be politically unpleasant, but there is no other way. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “52:14 – 09:53:57): Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. I would like to thank the reporters, fellow reporters, and the Commission for proposing at least some easing of the ETS through the MSR. We must see it also in the broader picture. This legislation didn't come in place yet, should start twenty-eight, and we are already correcting likewise we do, we did for reporting, sustainable reporting for CO2 standards for cars, etcetera, etcetera. Maybe we shall in the future do the legislation more properly. But to the point, we should take maximum from this file. Of course, with the six hundred million of allowances in the reserve fund defined in other legislation, we cannot do much music, but at least we shall, we shall try to do so. It is clear that the impact of ETS 2 would be high. It's great it's that this is postponed. We shall ask for more postponed in the other relevant revisions of legislation also to postpone for more. And just allow me to react to Mister Lisa. I don't agree that the member states don't do a lot. I mean, the member states, they know their situation. There are different situations in member states, and simply being the fastest in emission reductions in worldwide will not deliver. So we must be pragmatic, and the ETS 2 must be set as pragmatically as possible, and hopefully at least little bit we will be able to contribute to this pragmatic approach also with this small, small file. Thank you very much.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “43:29 – 10:46:13): Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, distinguished colleagues. I had to laugh a little bit when our distinguished colleague Peter Lise was talking as a scandal that some member states do not have the Social Climate Fund ready. Wake-up call: maybe there will be member states that will never ever implement the ETS Two and neither the Social Climate Fund. For me, much more scandalous is that the current ETS One is being speculated, and therefore the price today is between 65 and 85 euro, one of the most expensive worldwide. The same wrong architecture is now to be for the ETS Two, which will make again this tool as ETS One, a wrong tool. So what is the correct strategy? The correct strategy is, of course, to make changes in ETS One as much as possible, try to postpone ETS Two, especially after 2029, because I believe that after the next European elections there will be much more common sense. But now, now a little bit on the transparency: as long as the ETS is in place and just to withdraw it, it's not just simple, it's not like that. So we must make sure that the concerns of the industry and also gas and coal power plants generations are taken into consideration. The revenues should go and remain the revenues from ETS should remain in the regions and in the impacted sectors. This is extremely important. We also need to change this speculation and also secondary trading. It should be like a closed loop. Today there are so many players in the system, and it makes the system expensive. We shall understand that our priority should be that the energy-intensive factories continue running. What's going on in the ETS is that they would maybe apply for funding from the Modernization Fund, but they are forced to use some best available technology, which might work for some other factories in other parts of Europe but will never work for that one concrete factory in that one concrete region.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “So we must adapt. This is what we say. The new reduction climate target will not help. The adaption will not help to to adapt and will not protect the citizens from the floods, heat waves and so on. So it's very constructive approach. Its different approach, not the EU majority based one. Up to now, but its constructive. Also rejection as such is not the strongest way to say no. It still maintains the existence of the 2040 target in the climate law. So if you heard carefully my justification in years to come, when we see where we are with 2030 target, for example, when the war hopefully is in Ukraine over, we will have more clarity. The European Commission can come with concrete proposals, not just with blah blah, blah, clean industrial blah blah blah. Technology neutrality, real measures that will grant technology neutrality, protect the citizens from expensive costs. We can come later to this topic again because rejection is just postponing. Of course, we will table amendments and we will try to build the majority that will protect citizens from from unsustainable green ideologies and from old political orders. And I have five seconds. So just last message to EPP. This time it will not be about that. We will take bad commission proposal, improve it a little bit and we will say it's a victory. No. If we slightly improve the commission proposal, it will still be a bad proposal. And last sentence, EPP you have to choose between all orders and things you promised to citizens. Thank you. Thank you. Chairman.”
  Climate efforts
• “43:29 – 10:46:13): Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, distinguished colleagues. I had to laugh a little bit when our distinguished colleague Peter Lise was talking as a scandal that some member states do not have the Social Climate Fund ready. Wake-up call: maybe there will be member states that will never ever implement the ETS Two and neither the Social Climate Fund. For me, much more scandalous is that the current ETS One is being speculated, and therefore the price today is between 65 and 85 euro, one of the most expensive worldwide. The same wrong architecture is now to be for the ETS Two, which will make again this tool as ETS One, a wrong tool. So what is the correct strategy? The correct strategy is, of course, to make changes in ETS One as much as possible, try to postpone ETS Two, especially after 2029, because I believe that after the next European elections there will be much more common sense. But now, now a little bit on the transparency: as long as the ETS is in place and just to withdraw it, it's not just simple, it's not like that. So we must make sure that the concerns of the industry and also gas and coal power plants generations are taken into consideration. The revenues should go and remain the revenues from ETS should remain in the regions and in the impacted sectors. This is extremely important. We also need to change this speculation and also secondary trading. It should be like a closed loop. Today there are so many players in the system, and it makes the system expensive. We shall understand that our priority should be that the energy-intensive factories continue running. What's going on in the ETS is that they would maybe apply for funding from the Modernization Fund, but they are forced to use some best available technology, which might work for some other factories in other parts of Europe but will never work for that one concrete factory in that one concrete region.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much, chair. It doesn't happen very often. But I have to agree with Mr. Andrew Kitis. It does make sense to recognize obesity as a non-communicable civilization disease. It is in the interest of Europe to fight this disease, especially as concerns children. More consumption of local foods, varied diets, avoiding ultra processed foods, and making sure that the biggest transnational conglomerates produce healthy foods. They don't have to. So they don't at the moment. As far as sports are concerned, this is the responsibility of the parents, and it's in the interest of each and every one of us to do this. But the EU isn't helping. Money that could be spent on creating soccer fields. And children's sports groups are sometimes invested in useless green measures that help nothing and no one. If we want to have a healthier society, less obese society, let us invest more in sports. Let us invest less into non-governmental organizations and to self promotion of Brussels.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, allow me, on behalf of our shadow appearance, firstly, to thank the rapporteur and to present a couple of remarks. The Commission proposal addresses the slow deployment of renewable energy storage and grid infrastructure across the Union. Projects are too often delayed by overly complex and fragmented administrative procedures. These bottlenecks need to be addressed in the global context of a brewing energy crisis. This is very important. However, the speed must not come at the disproportionate cost of the environment. We agree with the rapporteur on insisting that member states should retain their right not to grant the presumption of overriding public interest to certain technologies, and the need for the Commission to support Member States in their efforts. Our amendments will aim at improving the effectiveness of the proposal while maintaining high environmental standards. A little bit deeper, firstly, we introduced a clear distinction between permit granting procedures and application granting procedures, as in most member states. Grid connection is not a permit. Secondly, we propose to maintain the role of independent facilitators only as voluntary to avoid adding unnecessary administrative burden and ease the implementation. Binding obligations would risk reintroducing red tape and run counter to the aim of the original proposal. Thirdly, on digitalisation, we agree that national digital portals can streamline administrative procedures. However, they must be set up in such a way that ensures efficiency and interoperability. And lastly, fourth, we propose the possibility of publication of connection decisions of network operators anonymously. This would safeguard sensitive data and improve trust of economic operators, which we see as crucial. So once again, thanks to the rapporteur for the draft report and we are looking forward for the upcoming cooperation. Thank you colleagues.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Commissioner. Mineral fertilizers are vital for EU food production and autonomy. Farmers call at the same time for cheap fertilisers. So our answer shall be to produce affordable fertilisers in Europe. Eu fertilisers industry must be therefore recognised as a strategic pillar of EU autonomy. The carbonization speed in EU fertiliser sector must go hand in hand with economic viability of new technologies and with global reality also. European fertilisers producers shall not be punished if the related grids for greener technologies are not yet available. Sector specific benchmarks must be put in place to address individual aspects of different production sites across the EU. Full carbon leakage measures must be granted without any exemption, and these measures would help EU fertilisers to have some competitiveness. But if we want to make EU production of fertilisers cheaper, we must consider exclusion of fertiliser sector from the ETS. Also, the methane regulation and diversify gas supplies to Europe to reduce gas price. So, Mr. Commissioner, your plan has some good elements but still needs a massive improvement. And please do not forget that our farmers need cheap European fertilisers. Not necessarily green fertilisers. Thank you very much.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you, honourable colleague, for accepting the question. I understand very well that you would like to invest into renewables as soon as possible. And of course, then have the local electricity production. Unfortunately, we also need nuclear as a part of the solution and it takes some time. So for this we need the fossil fuels because otherwise you can explain that today in France currently now the electricity carbon footprint is 20 times lower than in Germany. That has been massively investing for 20 years into renewables. How can you explain that? Thank you. Well.”
  Nuclear energy
• “If the green fertilizers, for example, through green hydrogen, were already cheaper, the market would already took place to care. So you still need to remember that many fertilizers are produced through natural gas, through fossil technologies. You can work with that. You can reduce the footprint. You can also diversify the guest sources to reduce the gas price, but simply green technologies, they have some step in possible speed. If you go too fast, it's not cheaper, it's not more sustainable. It's maybe more green, but not sustainable. So we must be very careful. It's about strategic autonomy.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, madam. Reporter. And, uh, Mrs. Jordan, who is our shadow? She unfortunately couldn't make it to the committee, so I will read a couple of words on her behalf. So, um, for the second year in a row, the discharge report has standardized for all 333 EU agencies. This has resulted in a report that is more factual and cautious, focusing primarily on financial accountability. I appreciate that the report highlights several long standing problems, including significant budget carryovers, persistent weaknesses in public procurement, and financial or human resources procedures that remain pending before the court. These shortcomings are not isolated cases and continue to raise serious concerns about sound financial management. I agree with the report's assessment that there has been a steady increase in the number of agencies, as well as in their mandate, staff and budget, often leading to overlaps and duplications of competencies, we should seek to prevent that some agencies have moved beyond their original mandate. Act in a way that does not clearly serve European interests or duplicate the work of other bodies. Such developments contribute to institutional fragmentation and unnecessary costs. At the same time, we should continue to support agencies with important added value, such as the Frontex, operating in line with the defined political guidance and legal responsibilities, or the EU Spa, ensuring the secure and efficient operating of the union space programmes. As a final point, I would like to recall that repeated public procurement irregularities remain particularly worrying. The Court of Auditors points out, year after year, that procurement continues to be the main source of irregular payments in instances, sometimes involving significant amounts. This damages the credibility of the union and undermines public trust. Stronger internal control mechanisms and greater transparency could help reduce this risk and improve efficiency. Many thanks. On behalf of Mrs. Goran. Thank you.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And Madam Commissioner, despite I understand that some elements of your proposal are going a good direction. Uh, I agree with some previous speakers that there are not sufficient in order to make the system fluently running across EU, and neither they are sufficient to gain the trust into this legislation and this ecosystem. So therefore, I fully stick to the idea that the stop the clock, uh, minimally full one year postponement is, uh, not that it would be good, but I'm afraid to say it's it's it's fully necessary. Uh, basically no debate. It's really like that. The stakeholders, small and large, many of them are really not ready. The IT system. I would have the same question as the Social Democrats. Speaker so I just stick to that. Uh, my further comment is on the risks assessment. Uh, I'm coming from a country where deforestation is not possible. Basically, if you have a statute of forests, it's it's forever. You cannot have something else than forest there. Therefore. And there are many countries like that in EU maybe not all. So therefore, I would even expected that the Commission would bring this kind of proposal, which would really reduce the burden to basically zero for countries, uh, and products and stock feed stock and so on. That comes from, from uh, this area of zero risk. At the end and at the end, I have a question. Uh, I understand the idea to to reduce the impact on the very small entrepreneurs and basically farmers. But if they are part of the value chain of large companies, that and the obligation remains for the large companies, will that mean that they are also the small, small players, uh, forced to apply these rules? Thank you very much.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “As I said, renewables will always have a share, but you need metals that are not in Europe. Okay. So you replace dependency for another. So also the dependencies must be diversified on the sources and also on the suppliers. I do not know what you do not get on this. It is clear.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “43:29 – 10:46:13): Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, distinguished colleagues. I had to laugh a little bit when our distinguished colleague Peter Lise was talking as a scandal that some member states do not have the Social Climate Fund ready. Wake-up call: maybe there will be member states that will never ever implement the ETS Two and neither the Social Climate Fund. For me, much more scandalous is that the current ETS One is being speculated, and therefore the price today is between 65 and 85 euro, one of the most expensive worldwide. The same wrong architecture is now to be for the ETS Two, which will make again this tool as ETS One, a wrong tool. So what is the correct strategy? The correct strategy is, of course, to make changes in ETS One as much as possible, try to postpone ETS Two, especially after 2029, because I believe that after the next European elections there will be much more common sense. But now, now a little bit on the transparency: as long as the ETS is in place and just to withdraw it, it's not just simple, it's not like that. So we must make sure that the concerns of the industry and also gas and coal power plants generations are taken into consideration. The revenues should go and remain the revenues from ETS should remain in the regions and in the impacted sectors. This is extremely important. We also need to change this speculation and also secondary trading. It should be like a closed loop. Today there are so many players in the system, and it makes the system expensive. We shall understand that our priority should be that the energy-intensive factories continue running. What's going on in the ETS is that they would maybe apply for funding from the Modernization Fund, but they are forced to use some best available technology, which might work for some other factories in other parts of Europe but will never work for that one concrete factory in that one concrete region.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “This is always the debate, the debate we have. So, for example, in my country, there is a lot of coal sources and the grids are fully prepared for this. But because of the high ETS price, we are forced to close them earlier than is necessary. If we use them a few years longer, like 5 to 10 years, we would not need to import so much, so much gas for the gas price. Yes, of course it's volatile, I agree, but we can diversify. There are really. And to diversify, you need long term contracts. And with methane regulation, for example, you don't need to have long term contracts pushing the price down. So it's about the speed of decarbonisation. I do not question the decarbonisation as such, but the pathway we are doing it to ambitiously.”
  Fossil fuels
• “(16:26:19 – 16:27:37): Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, distinguished colleagues, and of course thank you very much experts for your presentations. I would like to know your opinion on the priorities of the Budgetary Control Committee, which is maybe not so sexy but trust me it is also very important. I will skip the general words about strengthening transparency and accountability because in one minute you cannot make a lot, but I would like to know your opinion on the full application of OLAF, Court of Auditors, and public prosecutor competencies across all implementation models of the ECF. Also important, we see the need to ensure adequate geographical balance as well, to direct the technical assistance to less experienced entities as extremely important. We see reinforcing the safeguards against double funding and enhance the traceability of Union fund. And last, with regard to the financing not linked to the costs, it is important to ensure robust justification and clear methodologies for setting and verifying milestones and targets. Basically, the equation is that we need to design the ECF to ensure measurable added value on the EU level and avoid double funding and of course having clear performance indication. Thank you very much.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Uh, so, uh, to explain the reason between green and sustainable, let's say that green is only one third of sustainable. You have also economic pillar, and you have also socially acceptable pillar that to your first question. To your second question, it is simple. Two plus two is four. You want to make two plus two three. So it's not possible. Yeah. You have some global reality. And if you don't reflect it you can maybe afford it. But it will be too expensive and it will make the the fertilizer industry going outside the EU. And this is what we do not want. Thank you. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “52:14 – 09:53:57): Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. I would like to thank the reporters, fellow reporters, and the Commission for proposing at least some easing of the ETS through the MSR. We must see it also in the broader picture. This legislation didn't come in place yet, should start twenty-eight, and we are already correcting likewise we do, we did for reporting, sustainable reporting for CO2 standards for cars, etcetera, etcetera. Maybe we shall in the future do the legislation more properly. But to the point, we should take maximum from this file. Of course, with the six hundred million of allowances in the reserve fund defined in other legislation, we cannot do much music, but at least we shall, we shall try to do so. It is clear that the impact of ETS 2 would be high. It's great it's that this is postponed. We shall ask for more postponed in the other relevant revisions of legislation also to postpone for more. And just allow me to react to Mister Lisa. I don't agree that the member states don't do a lot. I mean, the member states, they know their situation. There are different situations in member states, and simply being the fastest in emission reductions in worldwide will not deliver. So we must be pragmatic, and the ETS 2 must be set as pragmatically as possible, and hopefully at least little bit we will be able to contribute to this pragmatic approach also with this small, small file. Thank you very much.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you chair. Thank you. Dear Mr. Commissioner, Surprisingly, I will maybe start a little bit. A little bit. Positively so. There are some positive elements in your speech. Your thoughts on the grids going in a good direction. I welcome the SMR points and also the idea on lowering taxes. Yes this is this is a good time to lower taxes, but you will not be surprised that since your hearing as the Commissioner candidate, there are still elements that I point on and you are ignoring them a little bit. So when we when it comes to the state aid rules, we need the nuclear. Without unnecessary restrictions and not only for MSR and also to include, under some conditions, coal and gas. It is really needed. Also ETS one huge effect on the price. We must have drastic changes. It will hurt, but it is necessary. The price must be below €30. No debate. And the ETS two to be postponed as long as possible. Also there is a. Mr. Commissioner, I am talking to you. Please do not share with your colleague. Also there is a number of legislation that have impact on the prices of gas, for example, the methane regulation or directive, or also the do no significant harm criteria for the gas. And maybe we need more diversified gas. So it is not true that everything you put forward is wrong. But I am afraid many of the things you put forward is wrong, because I am afraid you are repeating the same failure, and this is that you believe that you can simply close the fossil fossil sources without having a stable replacement, and I am afraid it will not work. Thank you very much.”
  Energy transition (state support)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for presenting the Safe Hearts Plan. I believe it will be an important step in fighting the cardiovascular diseases, which remain a significant burden to our healthcare systems and also the leading cause of death, not only in Europe. Also, I appreciate the respect for national competences in the field of health policy, and thank you very much for the emphasis on the prevention and early detection. Among the key pillars of your strategy, supporting health habits is far more effective than an ideological or prohibition based approach. Just we must be careful with measures such as the new assessment systems or potential EU wide levies to ensure they are evidence based, proportionate and respect technology neutrality. Our aim is not to prescribe lifestyles anyway. We know that the bands and directions for Brussels from Brussels don't work and do not run for people, neither for alcohol, nor tobacco or nicotine, nor food. We just must be careful. And finally, we must take into account the differences and specificities of the needs of individual regions. If the strategy shall bring real results at the end. Let me thank you for your presentation, and you can count on our support with the Safe Hearts Plan. Thank you.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)