Martin HOJSÍK

Policy topics Martin HOJSÍK is active on

What Martin HOJSÍK has said (75)

• 2026-06-17 “56:29 – 09:57:19): Very much. I have to stop you, and you got 7 minutes more because we're trying to locate the next speaker, which is madam Nibra, who is not here. So we'll wait extra few seconds for mister Penelay, who is on the way, but he is present. Okay. Yes. I see her. And if I can request to the members who are about to speak to be in the room, it would be highly appreciated. Happens to the best of us, but then the risk is that you lose your speaking slot. So, madam Libra, the floor is yours. Please be on time next time. Thank”
  Activities of EU Ombudsman
• 2026-06-17 “17:51 – 09:18:10): Thank you very much, commissioner. And you have even a bit of a time extra left. Now before the 1st round of political group speakers, let me just remind you that I have to be strict also during the 1st round. So please let me give the floor to Manfred Weber for the group of European People's Party, please.”
  EU political integration
• 2026-06-17 “12:37 – 09:13:03): Thank you very much, madam deputy minister. And I'll have to inform you that since we are now testing the new rules, as you've been informed, you will have only 2 and a half minutes at the end of the debate since you used part of, the, remaining time. And now for the commission, let me give the floor to commissioner Shevzczywicz.”
  EU public communication strategy
• 2026-06-17 “02:16 – 09:03:47): PCR effective as from 06/17/2026. The next item on the agenda is the joint debate concerning the preparation of the European Council Council and Commission statements preparation of the European Council meeting of June 2026 and Council and Commission statements future of EU China economic relations. I would like to remind you that for this key debate, there will be no speakers list. After the 1st round of speakers on behalf of the groups, members who received speaking time from their political groups or non attached secretariat will be called to speak and will be reminded of their allotted speaking time. Please keep an eye on the screens in the chamber where the current speaker and the next 3 speakers will be displayed. When your name appears as upcoming speaker, I would like to ask you to prepare and make your way to the rostrum. The normal rules regarding blue cards and the case the eye procedure will apply during the debate. I would also like to remind speakers that given the test measures currently in place and the fixed end time of the debate, strict observance of speaking times will be required. To the time to say it also in English, so, please understand that. Now would the to kick off the debate, I would like to ask, minister Aona on behalf of the council. The floor is yours.”
  EU-China relations
• 2026-01-14 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 26.3.2026 Written question The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published in 2020 its opinion [1] on the risk to human health of the presence of PFOS, PFOA, PFNA and PFHxS in food [2] . These are the main PFAS [3] currently found in food and human blood. For other PFAS present in food, the data available in 2020 were insufficient to allow for a conclusive risk assessment. Therefore, Recommendation (EU) 2022/1431 [4] asked Member States to monitor a wide range of PFAS in various foods, between 2022 and 2025, and to submit these data to EFSA by 30 June 2026. Once these data are available, EFSA will be asked to assess whether, in light of the new data on PFAS other than PFOS, PFOA, PFNA and PFHxS, as well as any new scientific studies, it would be necessary to update its opinion. Based on the results of this work, the Commission will discuss with the Member States whether maximum levels for PFAS other than PFOS, PFOA, PFNA and PFHxS should be established and/or whether the range of food commodities concerned should be extended. As part of the assessment of PFAS active substances used in plant protection products that may breakdown into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), the possible consumers’ exposure to TFA as a residue in crops [5] and risk therefrom is assessed, as well as the possible contamination of groundwater and drinking water. The Commission has initiated action to better understand the toxicological profile of TFA and its behaviour in the environment, including in drinking water [6] . [1] EFSA scientific opinion on the risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223. [2] Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS). [3] Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). [4] Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/1431 of 24 August 2022 on the monitoring of perfluoroalkyl substances in food, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2022/1431/oj. [5] 23 PFAS substances for products of plant origin and 3 substances for animal origin are included in the EU coordinated multiannual control programme. See Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/854. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/854/oj. [6] The Commission has mandated EFSA to re-assess the toxicological reference values for TFA and has mandated EFSA and the European Chemicals Agency ( ECHA) to examine the formation of TFA in soil and water and any deficiencies with the current regulatory studies designed to detect TFA formation. https://open.efsa.europa.eu/questions/EFSA-Q-2024-00502?search=trifluoroacetic, https://open.efsa.europa.eu/questions/EFSA-Q-2025-00693?search=tfa. The Commission has signed an agreement with the World Health Organisation to determine the relevant PFAS (including TFA) in drinking water and recommend health-based values for these relevant PFAS. The Commission launched a study to analyse treatment techniques and their related costs for PFAS (and TFA) removal from drinking water.”
  Maximum residue levels · Water pollution
• 2025-07-10 “E-002821/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission In 2023, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted an updated guidance on the risk assessment methodology for bees 1 , which includes extrapolation factors for toxicity from honeybees to wild bees. However, EFSA underlines that a lower tier risk assessment scheme requires defined numerical specific protection goals (SPGs) for wild bees. In 2022, when risk managers discussed the setting of SPGs for bees, most Member States supported an undefined threshold approach for wild bees in the absence of robust scientific evidence. To endorse and implement the updated bee guidance document, amendments are needed to the Commission Regulations on data requirements and uniform principles for evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products 2 . The Commission initiated discussions with the Member States on this in May 2023. The resulting draft Regulations were published for public feedback on 4 September 2025 3 . The Commission proposes that field studies with bumble and solitary bees are required if screening or first tier risk assessments for honeybees and/or other non-target arthropods show unacceptable effects, or, if available, laboratory studies show median lethal dose values lower than the limit dose, or, if available, semi-field studies show adverse effects. The studies should account for differences in toxicity and exposure for wild bees. Data from these field studies should enable setting a defined SPG for wild bees in the future. The adoption of the Regulations first requires support from Member States 4 , followed by scrutiny of the Parliament and the Council. The updated Bee Guidance document can be endorsed by Member States thereafter (expected in the beginning of 2026). 1 Revised guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees), available online via https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/7989. 2 Regulation (EU) No 283/2013, Regulation (EU) No 284/2013, and Regulation (EU) No 546/2011. 3 The three draft regulations are available on the ‘Have your say’ portal via: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14841-Amendment-of-datarequirements-for-applications-for-the-approval-of-active-substances_en; https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14840-Amendment-of-datarequirements-for-applications-for-the-authorisation-of-plant-protection-products_en; https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14839-Uniform-principles-forevaluation-and-authorisation-of-plant-protection-products_en. 4 I.e.: favourable opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed – section phytopharmaceuticals legislation.”
  Reduction targets for pesticides · EU policy on pesticides
• 2024-11-06 “E-002452/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission Article 3 (44) of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act defines the notion ’publicly accessible spaces’. These are locations where the general public can freely enter, often without restrictions. A school may be considered a publicly accessible space, depending on the circumstances. The premises outside the school yard should normally be considered publicly accessible. Article 2(3) AI Act provides that the AI Act does not apply to AI systems for national security. According to the Court of Justice, it is for the Member States to define their essential security interests and to adopt appropriate measures. However, the responsibility of Member States is limited to the primary interest in protecting essential functions of the State and fundamental interests of society and encompasses the prevention and punishment of activities capable of seriously destabilising the fundamental constitutional, political, economic or social structures of a country and, in particular, of directly threatening society, the population or the State itself, such as terrorist activities 1 . According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the mere fact that a national measure has been taken for the purpose of protecting national security cannot render EU law inapplicable and exempt the Member States from their obligation to comply with the EU rules 2 . Ultimately in such cases it corresponds to the Court of Justice to provide for the interpretation of EU law. The Commission will monitor the prohibitions and set up an AI Act Service Desk, which will answer questions of stakeholders on the application of the AI Act. 1 ECJ Judgment of 6 October 2020, La Quadrature du Net and Others, C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, paragraph 135. 2 ECJ Judgement of 6 October 2020, C-623/17 - Privacy International, paragraph 44.”
  Privacy & law enforcement · Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you very much. Housing is really a basic need for families and for the life quality. It is a threat to the future of young people in Slovakia and throughout Europe. In Bratislava, for example, an average young person. Would have to save up their total salary for 24 years. Before they can afford a housing 75m². That is a failure at national level. We therefore need a European solution and. I'm happy to see that the outcome of my work as well is that we have a proposal from the commission, but there are aspects like Digitization and the use of brownfield sites instead of agricultural land. The use of new ecological materials. All these things are part of the solution of affordable housing.”
  EU housing policy
• “Thank you very much. And sorry for the last moment. Now, this indeed feels like a small omnibus on its own, as watching how quickly it runs through Brussels with changes that are difficult to grasp rather than where they are coming from. And why. Just in July, the maximum residue levels for acetamiprid in honey and other agricultural products were raised from 0.05mg/kg to 0.3mg/kg. And here we are presented with further increased to 1mg/kg. Now, during the last two years, a number of peer reviewed studies have been brought further, have brought forward the evidence of chronic non-lethal effects of acetamide. Obese and in vivo studies bring further evidence on developmental neurotoxicity. There are demonstrated negative impacts on pollinating services delivered by solitary bees, which represent a major, major part of pollinators in some regions of Europe. According to the evidence, also queens of honeybees are negatively affected. Honey and other agricultural products are now tables because of pollinators. If the evidence is that the acetamiprid negatively impacts on these animals and negatively impacts their pollinating services and application of US based company, promising an increase of allowed residues cannot lead the EU to raising the levels from 0.3 to 1mg/kg. And we object to the measure proposed and we asked colleagues to support the objection next week, which will force the commission to present a different measure of preferably no measure of this kind. Because honestly, colleagues, we are in a situation where we face an ongoing pollinator decline, and by raising this limit, we ultimately are paving the way to endangering more pollinators, not to mention the health of us and our children. Thank you.”
  Maximum residue levels
• “Thank you. I'm going to be speaking in Slovak. Thank you. Chairman. As if I've been forgetting that it is ordinary people, ordinary people with middle and lower income that are mostly hit by the climate crisis. As if he were forgetting about the fact that these are these people whose life is more difficult. They have to discuss whether they can invest in renovation of their the housing or by a heat pump, or to buy electric car. As if we were forgetting about the fact that, as for the proportion of the climate crisis, the ordinary people take a bigger hit than the richer. This fund is an effort to try to do something about it. But I'm really concerned. I'm concerned about what it looks like, because I am already guessing that member states already these days are not using the money from emissions. In Slovakia, there are almost 2 billion from ETS, one just sitting on the account, and instead of helping people, uh, in accessible mobility or improved efficiency, the money is just sitting in the account and I don't know, how can we expect the member States to do some changes with the proposals of the Commission? How to make sure that it is used for the right purpose, or it goes to the right people.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you very much. And indeed it's really great to finally and I say finally have this proposal on the table. It actually only took the entire previous mandate to convince the commission to come up with it. I remember. Was it autumn 2019? I started with a number of colleagues, uh, when I took over the role of, uh, the contact point for Echa to massively lobby for it, because it's the only agency, as far as I know, until now, didn't really have a founding regulation. Uh, and it's a very important one on top of it. One which, uh, we as this house, uh, as a co-legislator, together with the council and the commission, kept on piling more and more work onto on a very, very important matters matters of human health, matters of environment, matters of competitiveness. And, uh, yet didn't have the financial stability and predictability, uh, that it definitely needs. So after even at moments when, you know, Echa had to put negative priorities out there, um, I'm very happy that we have finally this proposal on the table, and that it didn't have to wait for any possible revision, which was the Commission's attention or original intention. So thank you, Commissioner, for this. Now, I think that because of, as I mentioned, there is a big need for the financial stability, uh, and uh, that for that reason and a specific position vis a vis other agencies, we can support a limited reserve fund to be set by the ECA.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “The really most 1.5 degrees, possibly two, are what we see now, but we still have to try to aim for 1.5. Now, over the last ten years, lots of progress has been made, but there is still a lot of effort needed to keep this momentum and to keep this honestly opportunity for humanity. The world in 2025 is not the same as the world in 2015. Climate action is being more and more challenged by emerging threats, disinformation or as I call them, lies and the rise of liberal democracies and wars. But honestly, what we have to also admit that these are linked to the very cause way too often of the climate crisis. And that's our dependency on fossil fuels. Now, it's becoming clear that the 1.5 target will not be achieved, although as I said, we don't shouldn't give up. But it is not the time to give up. As the rise in extreme climate events show us that we cannot afford to lose the time, and every little bit that we can limit the global climate from. Warming is about millions and millions of lives. Or if you care more about money, about billions and billions of euros, dollars or whatever the preferred currency you have now, the anniversary of the Paris Agreement should not be a celebration of long gone past, but an occasion to look with honesty, but also with a hope at what we have done and what can we do collectively to speed up climate action in a just and equitable way? This is why I'm delighted that the Committee is hosting this discussion today.”
  Climate efforts
• “55:29 – 09:57:38): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you also to the rapporteur for a very good report. I'd also like to thank the rapporteur for being so brave and really tackling this matter more broadly than the original proposal by the Commission. I think it's important for these changes to be socially sensitive so that we help our citizens, help our economy, and let's say it openly, it really isn't only about the climate. This is about our freedom, about our security. Just as you've seen what Putin is doing in Ukraine, how he's used gas basically as a weapon against the EU, against us, the citizens of the EU. We also see the impact today during the war in Iran, and we see how fast the prices have rocketed, the prices of energy. I think therefore it's crucial for us to look very closely at where this money is going, the income from the ETS 1 and ETS 2. And this is where I see the major problem. For instance, Slovakia, this money is really not going into decarbonization. It's not going into easing the pressure on the price of allowances. There are more than two billion euros at the environmental fund in Slovakia, and this money has not been used for the original purpose. And unfortunately, the member states are blocking the use of this money, the profits from ETS, so that this money be used for decarbonization, for the climate dividend, and so that it'd be really compulsory. And I believe it's up to us, the Parliament, that we need to fight for this, and I believe we should be strong in this and resolute.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much and welcome. Great to have you here. Now for for a bit of a context. Uh, Slovakia is a country, uh, which has As for the worst availability. Worst? Uh uh, reach for housing for the young people. And this is really substantial, uh, problem that it's essentially creating massive issues in the society. Now, my question is, uh, because I believe that what we need to do is really to enable and get to the place where we can, you know, have in parallel housing. That's kind of the social way. And it's the housing that is serving a public good. And, uh, as space, uh, for the market competition, uh, as well, uh, how do you see as a commission the potential to look into the, uh, state aid rules when it comes to public support for publicly owned housing? I'm not in favor of funding private investors for private profit in the housing market, but I believe that communally owned rental housing is one of the best practices, at least in my region, is something to follow. But there is a limitation due to the bless you. Know, due to the insufficient availability of the funding instruments for the municipalities who have very limited own resources, and where combination of loans facilitated, possibly via EIB with a state aid could be really creating a huge change. Of course, with the guarantees, it is not going to be later privatized because it will be, again, a market distortion. Um, and second, I just a brief hope that the expert group is really going to be geographically as well as gender balanced. Thank you.”
  EU housing policy
• “A huge thank you for giving me the floor, even if I came running late. But, uh, too many meetings. Uh, now, first, a really brief remark. And thank you, uh, Jessica, for, uh, accepting in the sole compromise, the fact that we don't have any impact on the permitting. I think this is for the housing perspective, uh, really important because this is where, uh, indeed, uh, we need to make sure that we don't complicate things. And I'm happy that the compromise doesn't, uh, but from the other environmental perspective on how do you see the potential in Europe? Because we have indeed. Uh, and part of your portfolio is the circular economy, a substantial problem with the construction waste and what types of enabling actions can the Commission do to help to facilitate reuse and recycling of the construction waste into the new housing? What if you're going to be looking into the barriers because it can also, I believe, lower the costs of the new housing and lower its environmental footprint, especially when we look at cement but also other materials. So kind of the use of the construction waste, uh, how to facilitate it to provide more affordable housing. Thank you.”
  Construction products
• “The second issue is. What we need is that member states have more flexibility. I'm talking about direct income support. A climate dividend or climate check means that it will be the same payment for everybody, and it will make sure there is a direct income support to everybody, most the most vulnerable. So my question to the commission, why this fight on the legislation? You are trying to limit the possibility of Member States to use this climatic voucher or check. What are you doing for what are you preparing to present tomorrow for Member States to keep the prices low enough, and to make sure that at the end of the day, the money really goes to people so that they don't have to pay for the ETS. And the last comment, don't you find it strange that even this day, part of the population has been paying for ETS and no one has noticed nothing because half of the population in Slovakia is paying for ETS, but they are still not receiving the money back. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “It's slightly unusual, but equally, the way it operates is different to other agencies. And I think this is something which provides them with the needed stability and ability to operate and deliver for the businesses and consumers alike. Uh, now, we are also happy to see that no member state will be left unrepresented in the rack and sac. And this is something indeed what also is the job of the member States and their responsibility. And they haven't been delivering on this sufficiently. So we need to strengthen it. What we lack in the proposal is the possibility for the Member States and this very House to request an opinion from the agency. The possibility that we have from Efsa, and I think it's something which is going to be definitely needed to also improve our rights of scrutiny vis a vis the commission. So I think this is something which can, I hope, get a broad support in this House. And finally, what is not really clear to us, and I would like to hear a bit more clarification from the side of the commission. Uh, is that, uh, what could be the, quote, serious concerns on a decision proposal presented to the management board, unquote, in article 23 and why the commission wants to introduce a veto right for the rules of procedures of rack and seek, which is in article 15.4. Doesn't it undermine the independence of the agency? Thank you very much. And looking forward the explanations from the Commission.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you very much. And thank you to the commission to presenting the update. Now. It is indeed a massive problem. I'm going to add one more element that I learned recently. Uh, having met with the endocrinologists, that the situation is so bad, it is not only impacting us who are alive, it's not only impacting the unborn children in the bodies of their mothers, but it's it's impacting the children of the unborn children. Because as Because those of you who follow biology know the eggs are actually formed in the female body before, uh, it's, uh, the girl is born. And what we see now is the FAS actually impacting the children of the unborn children. And this is something which is indeed a really massive concern that we should never before witnessed the impact on so vast future. What we also face is a really unequal situation with regards to, uh, the knowledge about the PFAS pollution, because it looks like the Iron Curtain is still there in terms of the PFAS monitoring, if you look at the contaminated sites, the kind of the knowledge about the pollution of, for example, soil, uh, behind, uh, what used to be the Iron Curtain, there is no problem.”
  PFAs
• “Despite having the properties that fulfill all the criteria. So my controversial question would be, why do you think it's the case that we have technical norms that actually make a disadvantage of lower clinker cements, that fulfill the technical needs, yet are not allowed to be used? And this is something where I think we ultimately shooting ourselves in the foot still within the union, because yes, it would with the proper motivations within the ETS. And thank you for that same remark also. Um, Um, lower in the cheapest possible way, the emissions delivering ultimately also cheaper cement and lowering potentially even the construction prices because cement is an important part of it. Uh, but it's not only about the lowering of the clinker to to lower the emission because and for me, I'm wondering whether you have encountered and I know that you focus on cement similar challenges within the. And I was missing that, by the way, from, uh, the commissioner's message, the massive fragmentation of European market in terms of the technical norms, which is making it particularly hard for the SMEs and concrete example, there is a possibility to use prefabricated straw parts in the building of, uh, in the, in the construction sector, 100% Percent replacing the need for any cement, you know, no cement, no emissions, no need for CCS, no need to pay yet, uh, the, uh, technical norms are varying across the countries and in Germany, across the bundeslander, uh, meaning that it's actually limiting the possibilities of small businesses which are coming up with these innovative techniques to deploy them across the union without any administrative burden. It's not the European law, it's the member states laws that are making it.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Now how can we believe that we're going to have a circular economy with based on sustainability, if we rely on an ongoing input of fossil fuels and mixing hazardous chemicals? And I think this is where the issues of polymers and recycling of plastics, but also the use of plastic. The hazardous chemicals in plastics come into play. So a I would like to know how we're going to have finally, more information on the hazards and the use of polymers to enable circular economy. And b I'm wondering within hopefully the chemical industry package that is coming up, how are you going to combine the decarbonization and the detox of the chemical industry? What measures are you going to propose to drive reduction of use in fossil fuels by the chemical industry, both as a feedstock but also as a fuel? And how will you help to speed up substitution of hazardous chemicals, particularly in consumer products, but not only them? And will you be using the generic risk approach to persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals? Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Yes. You see the world in black and white or perhaps just black. You see, rather than one dependence. Dependency. You. You see, the only other possibility is to mean dependent on others. And I believe that energy produced in Europe is a solution to this. But you don't seem to acknowledge that. And that is regrettable.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “It's nothing really. What we need to have in a lipstick, and something where we can definitely address a lot of the pollution. Moving on to the climate or specifically the fossil fuel dependencies. And I really want to appreciate your words, Minister, regarding the Russian fossil fuels, because that is what is causing the high energy prices in Europe. Our dependency on the sweet, sweet Russian oil and gas that is like heroin for us. And that is fueling the madman's murder in Ukraine. This is something that we indeed must deal with, and the best way to deal with it is energy efficiency and renewables. Um, despite what many of the colleagues says, I think this is the really the most social and competitive way forward. And I'm wondering how the Danish presidency wants to try to use its this, this time to showcase and, uh, basically make it maybe make a road show of the good examples that Denmark is providing. You're not perfect, but there is lots we can we can learn from. And I think this is something which needs to be encouraged because it's about better quality lives for people and Endless money for a mass murderer. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you very much, Vice President. And indeed, this is a this is a crisis which has, uh, huge, huge impact on anyone who wants to actually have a family. Uh, when we keep on hearing about, you know, the, uh, need for, uh, the ability of the young people to unwillingness to young people to have family. This is something which is a massive, massive impact because simply they don't have the space to do that. Um, and, uh, I'm very happy that the commission is looking into something which doesn't have a very clear, uh, competence in, and I'm happy that this House has also taken up the issue. Now, I wonder, uh, when you talked about also the relocations on how and how are you going to enhance the control of the use of EU money so the housing doesn't end up building villas for, uh, the cronies of the government, as we see in some of the member states, because this is indeed going to be the problem. Also, how are you going to look into the proposals from the member states that this is not going to fund, so to say, investment funds, investment houses, uh, which again, are something it's not helping to solve the housing crisis. I would like to also highlight the need of the really real, uh, partnership principle, because what we've seen in a number of the member states is that it's not being upheld. And I wonder what is the issue? What is the approach that you are doing to try to really check if the member states are doing it? And last but not least, a very short comment, uh, with, uh, how do you want to help to enhance the role of the EIB in, uh, in the funding? Because ultimately this is investment, this is something which comes back, especially when it comes to the rental housing, municipal rental housing. And I believe this is a really important opportunity because we should not fund private gain. We should fund public goods. Thank you.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “Thank you very much. And indeed, I have to echo what Cesar said. This is this is a practice that doesn't belong into 21st century. And honestly, it didn't belong to the 20th. It's a it's a practice of indiscriminate mass slaughter of, uh, sea mammals that it's hard to find anywhere in the world. And it's really something that undermines our credibility. And I have to say, also, I believe it undermines the image of, uh, beautiful Faroe Islands. I think the way and very important way forward is not only and I would like to see more concrete actions from the Commission in terms of increasing the pressure, but I think it's also about dialogue and showing the way that the prosperity and traditions are are hand in hand and are not based on this type of indiscriminate slaughter, that it's both from an animal welfare perspective as well as from a conservation perspective. Just nonsense. And I don't think it brings any benefit to the island. And I believe as a European Union, we can help, together with Denmark, show the people of the Faroe Islands that there is a way forward for them and for the beautiful place without this mass slaughter. Thank you.”
  Commercial whaling
• “Well, we're talking about diversification, but it's the world market that sets the prices. And your Prime Minister is more than aware of this. And you should be aware of it too. We need to reduce our consumption radically. And we can do this by producing energy domestically. That's the solution that many regions, including your own, are unwilling to accept.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you, chair, and welcome, Commissioner. Still the same part of the room. Still the same part of the room, the same group. And now let me start actually with a quotation from your mission letter that you should explore how to scale up sustainable finance, in particular transition finance and climate resilience. Now this is something which just asking for itself to, you know, use the taxonomy because sometimes get the feeling that, you know, the taxonomy is failing. I don't regard 800 billion, I repeat €800 billion of uptake in capital expenditures that are aligned with taxonomy as a failure. I regard it as a really great kick off, and it's not going to be an easy task to scale it up, honestly, because it is indeed a great success channeling investment. So I'm wondering, how do we want to ensure that we exploit this properly? The potential at the same time, indeed, I have to say that delegated act is something of a concern because, uh, not mentioning the materiality, but also the changes to the do no significant harm could lead, in my opinion, to greenwashing, especially as it is reducing tenfold the number of dangerous substances that it would be considered to cause significant harm under the taxonomy.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Dear colleagues, please allow me to take the floor instead of renew shadow. Mr. Vlasic, who could not be with us today. When explaining his position now, with regards to the implementing regulation, the Commission has concluded that one of the conditions to reauthorize is met, namely, the one on disproportionate negative impact on society in comparison to the risks arising from the proposed uses of the substance on for human health, animal health and environment. And that is where the core objectors do not agree with the Commission. The Commission is commission based its assessment on the assumption that safe levels of exposure exist for humans, and those are not surpassed when input of the MPA and bromide from other sources, including by diet, is considered. If we, however, do not know what the safe level really is, and only assume that there is one, because bromide is an essential element and there is no conclusive evidence over what all intake sources might come together as an intake of bromide, and at what levels. Then this cost benefit analysis of the Commission on the Re-approval of an endocrine disruptor may be, well, simply wrong. The other element of the authors are objecting. The other element the authors are objecting are the risk of other risk mitigation measures described in the draft Implementing Regulation.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you mister executive vice president I think that it's finally time for the commission and let's be honest colleagues also asked to step up and stop this favorite game of member states government blaming Brussels or in this case Strasbourg because honestly it is them who are putting obstacles in the way of a single market. The European regulation is setting up the same rules across the one market but then come member states government who put extra provisions on their own down to really silly things like having different colors for waste separation between the member states. Now imagine what it means for a scale up in the cleantech from Slovakia in the construction business having to go for certification of their product in every single member state and in Germany of course in every single Bundeslund. What we are putting in front of us is more than what Trump is doing to more than forty percent de facto tariffs on good and more than hundred twenty percent de facto tariffs on services let's not kid ourselves let's get finally a single market thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you very much. And a big thank you to the distinguished, panelists are really, really interesting information, and I think we need to look at the issue also from a perspective of the objective. And I think this is from the remit of the House side of this joint hearing. It's the affordable housing, not even housing ownership, but the fact that people can afford a place to live. It's not a tax revenue. I think this is two distinct objectives, and I want to use the Slovak example a bit in terms of the affordability. So please bear with me. I'll try to be fast because we have, I think, among the young people, the worst affordability of housing in the entire European Union, which is pretty horrible. And I think part of it is because our taxation system is actually favouring what is called investment housing. So people purchasing housing and not even renting it out because you don't only pay a tax on your rental income, but also health care insurance, which is massively increasing and actually discouraging people from the housing. But I wonder which and especially for, uh, the professor Eckenfelder and, uh, Madame Hourani, which of the taxation systems would your kind of what steps would you recommend to really kind of encourage affordability and availability? Also in terms of the, uh, rental housing? And in your experience, uh, is it is the communal rental housing. So the, the Vienna example, uh, something which is a taxation policy focus on providing a communal rental housing, uh, A better, or is it the privately held rental housing? In terms of the results from availability of affordable housing point of view, not from the from the outcome of increasing tax revenue? Because I think what we need to address is the affordable housing. Thank you very much. And thank you for your patience.”
  EU housing policy
• “Thank you, chair. And dear Executive Vice President Stefan. Now, let me start with one important thing. Yes. I actually share one thing with Peter. I think we need to adjust the Green Deal. There was one big mistake. Everybody was talking about the transitional role of gas five years ago. What it caused exactly this high energy prices. The dependence we built on the sweet, sweet Russian gas. But honestly, who can trust Donald Trump that we will keep on keeping on getting deliveries of LNG from the US, or that he will not blackmail the Qataris. And we cannot rely only on Norway. So this is something which is a really fundamental problem, the recognition of a fossil fuel, namely gas, as something that is helpful. It's something that is part of the solution. No, it's actually the utmost reason for the high energy prices. And I think this is something which we have to keep on repeating. Hence, we need to address and lower the use of fossil gas. And this is for me something which is very much linked with also the circular economy package. Because honestly we are dependent on fossil fuels and from the third countries in our entire material flow.”
  Natural gas
• “Thank you. As a country, you were heavily reliant on imports of gas, coal, but also oil from Russia, with the security as its core. I wonder, do you prefer then to be dependent on the US with the Trump regime, with the supply of gas and oil, or do you prefer to be dependent on the Gulf states, or which part of the world you think is going to provide Europe enough oil and keep our independence? Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you chair. Dear Sharon. We are honored to welcome you again in the committee. In times when we actually really, after 20 years, almost now await the modernization of the reach, but also we said that we are rumors about the commission's intention to deregulate the chemical legislation, including when it comes to serious issues like presence of carcinogens in cosmetics or legibility of labelling of hazardous chemicals. And I have to say, as I said before, that, you know, we have competition. Yes, we have a holes in the region that need to be plugged. Like the fact that it doesn't really cover the chemicals in imported articles resulting in hazardous products, uh, on our market. And I think this is one of the things where it's unfair competition for our chemical industry, as well as negative impacts on the health of the citizens. And I think this is one of the many examples where actually stronger reach is helping both industry and consumers alike. But it doesn't mean that we cannot be more simpler and more straightforward. Uh, but it has to benefit, as I said, the consumers and industry alike. And there is. This is a way to improve the stability and competitiveness and sustainability of the industry.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Now there is this unusual custom that actually spread around many of the member States. And it is to blame Brussels to blame Europe for every hardship, for every problem. There is something we often see here from the extreme right. Yet often the problems start at home. We are having a discussion about the European Council meeting, and what we talk about is a commission where, dear Council, actually the problem is very often new. If you look at the letter report, if you look at the IMF data, the bureaucracy starts on a national level. What we see is much more than Trump's threats of tariffs. We see that de facto, we have 40% tariffs on the goods and more than 120% tariffs on the services within the European Union. We are suffocating our companies. We talk about the need for clean tech, which is really, really big, but we actually are putting obstacles in front of the companies who want to grow in Europe. So please, dear Council, put one important thing on your agenda that is missing. How to stop putting obstacles between the member States. Everybody talks about cutting back bureaucracy on the European level. What about stopping unnecessary bureaucracy? You put on top of the European rules because people face hardship. Despite all the blaming of Brussels, people trust Europe more than ever and we need to deliver. And it is time for the council to actually start delivering. We need stronger Europe. We need super Europe that actually cares about the people, cares about the competitiveness. That housing is a right, not a commodity that really gets independent from the imported fossil energy, all that, and it was great to hear it from the president. All that is the right way forward. And I think the majority of this House is ready to support it. But what we see often is council putting obstacles. So please, for example, on the ETS, make sure all the money goes back to people and businesses and just does not end up in the state coffers. And I could go on. What we need is a stronger Europe, not a fragmented one. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you. And the next speaker is Mr. Andriukaitis. **Vytenis Povilas ANDRIUKAITIS Thank you, chair. Dear Commissioner, dear Valdis. We all know about what we are just speaking. Of course, recent European and United States behavior and events have only added chaos and uncertainty. The threat to invade Greenland. Coercion against Spain. The Supreme Court ruling declaring the reciprocal tariffs illegal. Immediately followed by new tariffs, threats towards European legislation, and so on. Of course, we all know very well that we need to now have such predictable answers and European Parliament proposals. Now, Langham Report is an excellent example to protect us and to improve those 6C6 C's. It means very important toolkit which should be used by the Commission also. And please keep in mind, Commissioner, we are not speaking about steel and and and aluminium. About biotech, about medicines, about pharma, about our research and and possibilities to invest. And this is very important time now to defend our sovereignty. Not only keeping in mind steel, but but research and investment also.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “(16:51:46 – 16:55:07): Thank you very much sir well one more thing that the extreme right is pro life and they're not and equally you know it's very clear that there is the ideology on on on their side and lack of comprehension in terms of reading because yes the major conclusion is and we heard it the first words from the court of auditors life works the strategic specific part of the audit are the strategic pros projects work and deliver and i have to say you know seeing the beneficiary in spain on the looking at the strategic project at cross border which is honestly public authorities not the ngos dear colleague you know ten million eleven million eight hundred ninety seven thousand euros going to the public authorities from cross borders cross border life project in pyrenees delivering the results since when public authorities are ngos so you can deduct this from this there are millions and millions going to public out authorities millions and millions going to companies and i think this is something which we have to equally the project in poland on the podkarpacie voivos chips which you know is actually about protecting life like the real lives of people who are dying from air pollution and addressing the energy poverty maybe that's not what the ecr that that piece to be specific cares about more about having some of its former ministers seeking asylum with orban because of corruption proceedings talking of corruption and transparency now i have to say that for me the findings of the audit are something which is really important and as colleague wiesek said i see there's something which is a broader cross cutting recommendations because we should indeed be better in looking at how we follow-up and have certain limits there because honestly the follow-up on the seven hundred billion euros of of the rff is something which is equally limited and having visited recently and discussions in the court of auditors is something which is gonna be a challenge for us in the eu the follow-up on the funding to companies the funding to agriculture everywhere is something as a challenge and we should look at it but at the same time we should not create a massive red tape because simplification is the cause of the day so we have to actually choose and find the right balance which is not gonna be easy and last but not least farmers i have to said that the colleagues from epp left but this is something where indeed the far the structural projects because this is what we're talking about from life are helping for example in netherlands to protect the precious water that the farmers are missing and this is something which is fundamental equally in slovakia protection from the carnivores is thanks to the far thanks to life and helping the farmers and to conclude i couldn't resist i'm sorry as opus said life is life no no no no thank you”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Um, Mr. Slipper, if you want a blue card, it should. You should push the button. Yes, I can understand, but that's why we have the electronic system. I like that you are trying to play with the rules of procedure. Your diligent study of the rules is highly appreciated, but I would really like to ask you to use the electronic system. That's why we use the taxpayers money to install it. So, um, okay, so, uh, Mitchel, do you still accept the blue card from, uh, colleague shipper? I think he's coming back. So you have the blue card.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Yes, thank you very much. I'll be using the interpreters so that I can speak Slovak. Now, the first thing that I like here is that the Commission has assessed progress and has come to the to conclusions about it, because this really has an impact on people's everyday lives. It influences the lives of farmers and it can be a big problem. Mr. Lesar pointed out that our dependence on fossil fuels is a security issue. It's a question of our independence, our self-sufficiency. But at the same time That our policies are leading to high energy prices. One of our most important suppliers is using fossil fuel supplies as a weapon against us. So it's a very important that we should reduce and eliminate this dependency. It's very important that renewable energies are local and that they remain a top priority for our governments. It's also very important for us to reduce barriers to expanding renewable energy and towards moving to a clean economy. There is a lot of pressure to avoid any additional administrative burdens. So that's my question. What does the Commission plan to do in this area? I know that there are quite a lot of barriers when it comes to certifications, and there are other national rules that have to be complied with. So what does the commission plan to do in this area? Not all countries use the revenue from clean energies. To benefit their own citizens and industries. So my question is whether the Commission has got any information about the structure of revenues from the ETS in the Member States. What is the proportion of unused resources in the Member States from the ETS? I would also like to call upon the commission to request a a separate geothermal plan. This is an energy source that has a great deal of potential. It can produce electricity from sources which we walk upon every single day underneath our feet. We need cutting edge technologies here in Europe, just as happened with solar energy and wind energy. I hope that the Commission's action plan on geothermal energy will be coming our way soon, and I'd be very interested to hear the Commission's views on this subject.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Let's call a spade a spade. We find ourselves in a crisis which we have caused ourselves as a result of our dependence on oil and gas, and we are now paying the price for this. The depending on energy from elsewhere will always be a risk to our security. Let's be clear. Uh, our well-being shouldn't be determined by those in Moscow or Tehran. They have always defended their own sovereignty. And those who are now seeing how we're suffering are blaming the Green Deal, many in Slovakia, but also here in the European Parliament who support Trump and Putin. They are fighting against the production of EU energy. But it is this energy that will set us free. Nobody can turn the sun off. Nobody can cut off the wind. No autocrat will be able to put a stop to our geothermal energy. Our clean European energy is the only solution in the face of oil oligarchs. We need to opt for EU energy. It is not also not only cheaper, but more sensible choice for peace and for our planet.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. Now for the new Europe. The Vice president. Mr.. Thank you very much. Thousands of human lives every single year. That's what we're talking about here. So many lives have been lost. The climate crisis is becoming a catastrophe. And we have to deal with the cause of this catastrophe. Mitigation and adaptation are needed. So what is in the epicenter of all of this? Well, it's our cities and our apartments. Adaptation means that we are going to have to be able to survive heat waves without people dying. So that is part of the solution to our apartments. Our houses have to be insulated. It's not just a question of using less energy in winter, it's also a question of dealing properly with heat waves. What we need is support for energy efficiency. We have to support the renovation of housing, and we have to make our cities greener again, so that these extremes can be survivable in future.”
  Energy performance of buildings
• “Thank you very much, chair. And indeed, I want to appreciate the commission proposal. Uh, because, uh, yes, the renewable projects are often facing a lot of unnecessary obstacles. And at the same time, and I recognize it in the commission proposal that, uh, like every other project, they need to be done together with the communities, uh, and for the benefit of the communities where they will be located, not against their will. Uh, I don't think steamrolling works, but I see this, uh, directed primarily certain renewable energy sources and, uh, not all of them, and specifically one that's close to my heart. And that's George. Especially the next generation. So I'm wondering if the commission is planning concrete steps also in this direction in the near future, and if they're going to be in the action plan, because indeed the permitting is, I would say, insane. Uh, is, uh, the same. Permitting is all. All, sorry, all drilling, for example. And this is not something, uh, which is in any way reasonable or actually correct. So, uh, seeing this proposal, I wonder whether the commission is going to look for additional renewable energy sources that need similar approach. Thank you.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “Thank you very much. And yes, it's only a category two, CMR products category two, very toxic to aquatic life. But what I think is also very important to realize because these are not the cutoff criteria, but it's also very highly persistent. Remember PFAs is also very highly persistent. And this is something which itself is not also cut off criteria. However, the issue with the commission draft is that Efsa peer review identified an amount of data gaps, including insufficient information on genotoxicity of the metabolites short and long term toxicity, including carcinogenic potential linked to the SDH inhibition. Now, for a number of these, there are test methods. Furthermore, according to Efsa, data gaps do not allow it to conclude on consumer risks from the consumption of drinking water as well as the effects of PD. Often the active substance itself, but also the metabolites on water treatment processes. Now, in the times when we are increasingly facing water crisis and we hear from the utilities cleaning the water about the incredibly rising cost, this is something which I'm wondering who's going to bear the cost of additional clean up. Probably not the makers of this substance, but the entire society. So I'm wondering the prudence of the commission here, but there are more shortcomings summarized in the text of the objection.”
  Water pollution
• “Also, I'm wondering, uh, to which extent do you see, uh, not just the short term rentals and the shift to Short-Term rentals, but also what I would call the the investment purchases of of housing units impacting, uh, the price as well as the availability on the market. Do you have local data, especially in the most desired destinations, on the number of privately owned, uh, vacant, uh, flats or houses that basically are held purely as investment vehicles? And if you have a number of these also which are held by as investment vehicles, uh, by uh, so to say third country nationals or Other companies, although this is hard to determine if you have a local vehicle that's foreign owned. And last but not least, uh, great to hear about the use of, uh. The, uh, RF money in building up the, uh, rental housing, affordable rental housing in Slovenia. I'm wondering if any of your countries have programs, uh, trying to use the unused government owned buildings that were predominantly used for other purposes into renovating them into, uh, long term, uh, affordable, not necessarily only social, but social, but as well as affordable rental housing. And, uh, last but not least, uh, if, uh, any of your countries have specific, uh, schemes of involving private investors, uh, in investing into, uh, long term rental housing, and what safeguards do you have to make sure that this is affordable housing? Thank you very much.”
  EU housing policy
• “But the reason is that there is no monitoring. And I think this is something which we need to look at. And I'm happy to say that also the recently in trilogue agreed sold monitoring law should help to improve it. We need to know more about the pollution, but also we need to act to clean up. So one thing is really for me, the question to Madam Freddy on how the Commission will uphold the right protection of the citizens from the PFAS pollution and ensure the polluter pays principle, because indeed, for example, the cost of the just maintaining clean water in places like Flanders will be insanely high due to the long neglected PFAS pollution. Who's going to pay for this? And second, uh, regarding the Reach review going beyond PFAS, how will reach be looked at from a point of view of preventing similar things happening in the future? How will reach to make sure that we plug the gaps of the knowledge where we don't have it, to prevent such things like the PFAS pollution from happening ever again? Thank you very much.”
  PFAs
• “The theme of the debate is cutting red tape and simplifying business in the EU. The first omnibus proposals.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “55:29 – 09:57:38): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you also to the rapporteur for a very good report. I'd also like to thank the rapporteur for being so brave and really tackling this matter more broadly than the original proposal by the Commission. I think it's important for these changes to be socially sensitive so that we help our citizens, help our economy, and let's say it openly, it really isn't only about the climate. This is about our freedom, about our security. Just as you've seen what Putin is doing in Ukraine, how he's used gas basically as a weapon against the EU, against us, the citizens of the EU. We also see the impact today during the war in Iran, and we see how fast the prices have rocketed, the prices of energy. I think therefore it's crucial for us to look very closely at where this money is going, the income from the ETS 1 and ETS 2. And this is where I see the major problem. For instance, Slovakia, this money is really not going into decarbonization. It's not going into easing the pressure on the price of allowances. There are more than two billion euros at the environmental fund in Slovakia, and this money has not been used for the original purpose. And unfortunately, the member states are blocking the use of this money, the profits from ETS, so that this money be used for decarbonization, for the climate dividend, and so that it'd be really compulsory. And I believe it's up to us, the Parliament, that we need to fight for this, and I believe we should be strong in this and resolute.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much, president. Commissioner Jurgensen. High energy prices damage businesses. You're responsible. You're responsible for this in Slovenia. Slovakia. There are problems with competitiveness because we are dependent on the import of gas. And that's why I'm in favor of the Commission action plan for an affordable price energy. This will reduce the bills for households and for industry and will reduce our energy crisis. It will improve our resilience to crises because businesses and families will be better off. We must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and our lack of interconnectors. The EU can spend 30 billion a year on this, but that's not enough. All European countries, including Slovakia, are behind schedule here. That's why we need a swift transition to renewable energy. We need to decarbonise and to eliminate fossil fuels.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “The regulation provides that the active substances can be proved if it does have any harmful effects on human health, including of the vulnerable groups. However, instead of authorizing PD, often only once the data are submitted and safety is confirmed, the Commission approves the substance which conditions attached to Member states to pay particular attention to the data gaps and pay particular attention to the consumer risk and the protection of groundwater. Clearly, the Commission hasn't done its job. So instead of asking the applicant to do the job, it's dropping in on member states. And I don't think this is fair. It's dropping in on the water treatment Utilities dropping it on the society. So the commission has a responsibility. And yes, just grants wants to grant the authorization. And I'm sad to say that this is one of the typical practices that led the Ombudsman to ask the Commission to review its approach to definition and implementation of mitigation measures and authorisation of plant protection products. So I believe the objection needs your support colleagues, and I hope it will get it. Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Dear Vice-President, dear Madam Commissioner. Now indeed, our chemical industry is in good shape. The massive dependence on predominantly Russian gas to put the prices up high up in the sky. And that is something that is having massive, massive impact. Indeed, I am very happy to see a none of the improvements in your proposal, and I am happy to see that there is a focus to revive the chemical industry, to bring back innovation in style. But very honestly, in this House we had a special committee on beating the cancer. Honestly, the best cancer that you can. The best way you can deal with the cancer is not to get cancer. And how you want to protect people from getting cancer. When we are extending the timelines, when the companies are obliged to put on the product that it contains cancer causing chemical. This is something which we indeed must change. And I am really disappointed that only recently adopted labelling legislation by this House with a big majority is being undermined by a commission proposal. So yes, we need to revive chemical industry, but it is not for the benefit of the industry nor for the benefit of its competitiveness. To put hazardous chemicals that can cause cancer on the market. Without knowledge of the consumers. Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “What we have to avoid is the is the race to the bottom, because honestly, um, the crisis that we have on our hands is something of unprecedented scale, and it's showing us where the bottleneck exactly because of the lack of generic risk approach. Exactly. Because the, uh, the restriction procedure takes too long. We're not only going to face huge, uh, impacts in terms of the human health. It's going to be tens, if not hundreds of billions of euros, which we don't have to just to keep our drinking water clean of PFAS. And I wonder who is going to pay for it. So let me ask you, in the light of the upcoming Reach proposal, what do you see and what the agencies is that sees as the biggest challenges in terms of the chemicals management? And where do you see also the opportunities in the chemical safety for the future. And finally, because PFAS is not anymore emerging, it's a real threat. But there are emerging threats. And I wonder, what do you see as these emerging threats that we should, as policymakers, address to prevent future impacts on health and businesses alike? Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “55:29 – 09:57:38): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you also to the rapporteur for a very good report. I'd also like to thank the rapporteur for being so brave and really tackling this matter more broadly than the original proposal by the Commission. I think it's important for these changes to be socially sensitive so that we help our citizens, help our economy, and let's say it openly, it really isn't only about the climate. This is about our freedom, about our security. Just as you've seen what Putin is doing in Ukraine, how he's used gas basically as a weapon against the EU, against us, the citizens of the EU. We also see the impact today during the war in Iran, and we see how fast the prices have rocketed, the prices of energy. I think therefore it's crucial for us to look very closely at where this money is going, the income from the ETS 1 and ETS 2. And this is where I see the major problem. For instance, Slovakia, this money is really not going into decarbonization. It's not going into easing the pressure on the price of allowances. There are more than two billion euros at the environmental fund in Slovakia, and this money has not been used for the original purpose. And unfortunately, the member states are blocking the use of this money, the profits from ETS, so that this money be used for decarbonization, for the climate dividend, and so that it'd be really compulsory. And I believe it's up to us, the Parliament, that we need to fight for this, and I believe we should be strong in this and resolute.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “And here I have to say, I have a large concern, and that is because of the timelines that are foreseen both in the Commission proposal as well as in the council tax compromise that's out there, as well as in the draft from the European Parliament vis a vis how long it's going to take for the substance that's becoming classified as a carcinogen, that it can still be in a consumer product. Now, the current rules, it's one half years from the moment, not whether we know, but from the moment when the classification under the CLP enters into force. So there is a few years ahead when there is deliberated, everybody is discussing it. So there is a knowledge, there is a problem. So the moment it enters into force, one half years until the products get out, the commission proposal is almost five years. Now. Is this not lowering the level of protection of human health? I'm wondering, is it something where we don't want PFAS in the products and suddenly, instead of getting them one five years from classification, the commission is saying almost five years. They still could be the cosmetics in the creams that people do on the face. And I don't know what else. I don't believe that this is something which the cosmetics producers in Europe want because they deliver quality.”
  PFAs
• “So, dear colleagues, we will start the debate on the commission statement without the commission present. And I have to say, this is really appalling. But this is not really a time for us to sit and relax. And I think this is going to be made quite clear to the commission that this is not an acceptable to have a commissioner here for this actually really important debate on a new bureaucracy, as.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you, Madam President. Yes, the commission work plan should be about security, competitiveness. But how can we be secure if we still are dependent on import of fossil fuels, including from regimes which are waging war against us, which we consider as enemies. And how can we gain independence when actually we are undermining our own innovators, our own scale ups, when we are forcing them to leave to other countries? And no, it is not the European regulation. The sustainable finance framework has brought EUR 440 billion taxonomy compliant investments and that not counting the 2024 asset managers, which are covering €6.6 trillion in assets, are saying please keep it, do not undermine it because you lose credibility, you lose our money. So that is the worry that the simplification might actually throw out the baby instead of the What we need to look at. And what I'm missing in the commission work programme is something else. Single market. And that is something where, you know, even the IMF is very clearly showing that actually, you know, forget about Trump's 25% on the manufacturing, the internal tariffs because of the fragmentation of 40% and 120% on services. We pretend that we have a single market. We do not. And we are throwing our companies. It is not the effort to save our home, our planet. It is the member States fragmenting and doing their own interest groups and protecting their own vested interests. Stronger Europe. That is what is important part of this. Two more issues from the programme that I am kind of missing. I would like to see stronger. We are losing the disinformation war. We are losing the. There is incredible pressure on civil society, and I think this is where the commission needs to be bolder within Europe and outside Europe. The last thing a bit of humanity. Millions of people called for the end of the Cage Age Commission. It's time to deliver. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you very much. And, uh, I have to say, for some reason, I feel that, you know, among some of the political groups, there is a feeling that, uh, all the taxonomy has been such a horrible failure. I don't know, for me, 1 trillion colleagues, €101,000 billion of taxonomy compliant investments over the last five years is, uh, actually a really great success. And that is something which went through with, you know, do not significant harm which went through with all the criteria and yes. Mr. Vondra €6 billion or. Sorry, I have to check. Maybe the precise euro is. I know it's the €8 billion. €8 billion is the prospect for chess the energy utility, to issue taxonomy compliant bonds, also for nuclear. So it's not stopping it. We don't need to open level one because there are investments that are pipelined by the chess from Czech Republic into nuclear. It's the prospect they published its prospect. They're published and it includes nuclear. So we have to talk to chess that they are lying, not me. I'm quoting chess in terms of the things that I really actually care about. And I think it's important is one thing is the call on the commission. I would like to assurance that it's going to be helped with the guidance of the. No significant harm rather than trying to dismantling. And I would also like to acknowledge that the Commission is looking at correcting the criteria for the geothermal energy, because talking of easy to build, really emerging technology, dispatchable baseload electricity, the next generation geothermal is the future. And I'm looking forward to the free competition between nuclear and the next generation geothermal. Let the best win. Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Thank you. Dear colleague, you come from Estonia, a country that indeed faced through its history, quite a bit of a trouble, to say the least, from Russia. I am wondering, do you see the dependency on import fossil fuels as something that is a problem? And how would you replace it? Thank you. Thanks a.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. And that brings us to the end of the first round of speakers on behalf of political groups. And now blue cards are available. The usual courtesy of giving a bit more speaking time, a bit more tolerant towards speakers of the political groups. But now, due to the time, we'll have to be a bit more strict. So let me give the floor to Mr. Shcherba, please.”
  EU public communication strategy
• “I was informed that the reasons the traffic jam, not a meeting with commissioner, with lobbyists. I'm sorry to disappoint you there, but I still believe that there are enough commission officials listening to this podcast anyway. And I think that this House should not be stacked because of this. So I would like to give the floor to Thomas Dolby to open the debate.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you. And thank you, Commissioner, for being with us here. And indeed, I have to say that I'm sorry that you have to hear a certain, let's put it this a very impolite words from our Prime Minister. And let me assure that he's not speaking for the entire country. Now, the important thing is, colleagues, that it's not been 21. It's been actually 2000 when Putin for the first time declared that they're going to use the natural resources. So oil, gas as a geostrategic tool. We've been naive last 25 years, and now we're paying the price. And I think this is where it's really, really important that we never fall for this trap. And as you said, Commissioner, not a single molecule is coming from this country again, because, yes, they're going to use it against us. Now, for me, the main question is how are you planning to indeed ensure that we are all covered in the first measure? It's been asked many times, but I think this is something which is really important. And how are you going to ensure also that the emergency brake is not going to be misused, because I think this is something which is indeed a really big concern. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “So how do you want to have safeguards to ensure that this will not actually turn into, you know, taxonomic compliant pollution with cancer causing chemicals? I don't think that's what we want. And last but not least, stability. I heard it before from the colleagues. Now I wonder what stability you see for the businesses to have to comply with the sustainability and due diligence reporting that the Commission is also saying that those changes, the delegated act now is only a quick fix, that this is something which is pending a broader revision of the climate, environment, delegated acts and do no significant harm. So I'm a bit concerned about the stability here when commission is just saying, oh, we just pick something very fast and then we're going to change it again. So could you be more concrete about your intentions and what changes do you consider in the do no significant harm? Because indeed our group is strongly behind taxonomy. And this is it. Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Let's take this into account. So it's not something which should be heavy on our budgets, but actually it's about helping to start it and it will be self financed afterwards. That would allow companies to lower the risk per drilling, and that's something we need to look closer into. We need to look closer in harmonizing the permitting because honestly, every member state has it a bit differently. It's again a one massive case of really fragmented market, and we need to create help to create the right framework for this utilization. Second is the future. I believe that actually we are going to be going to be soon able to go much deeper than five kilometers, and that means the geothermal will be available really anywhere. The crucial thing is to make sure that the emerging technologies are also being developed in Europe, are not moving to the states because that's what's happening. That's what's happening to the scale ups in the geothermal cleantech area. And we need to make sure they are here, that when we go deep and drill deep that we can do it with more and more European technologies and companies, but also that our turbine production is linked to this, that we utilize the geothermal production, geothermal potential for making the turbines here, that we look at it as a complete ecosystem that supports our energy independence and security and delivers a stable, cheap energy. Thank you.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “Thank you very much and great to be with you, Madam Commissioner, in our joint hearing. Now, what I hear is feels like a taxonomy has been one massive disaster and failure. Now I'm wondering if 530 billion investments that are taxonomy compliant just in the first two years are such a disaster for the European economy that they couldn't really overcome the massive bureaucracy. This 530 billion of investments that are taxonomy compliant. Let's be honest, it works. It delivers investments into European companies, European businesses helping to close the gap. 530 billion. I will have to keep on repeating it. What I'm wondering about is, and what I'm concerned about with the commission steps forward, is that honestly, the financial markets are not, pardon my French, stupid. And they will see through if we make it just a greenwashing exercise. So what risks is what how is the Commission assessing these risks? Because just three days ago, EIB issued green bonds in the sum of EUR 3 billion, which were oversubscribed 13 times. You might say, oh, the demand was before the demand is here and now. And if you turn it into just a greenwashing exercise, we'll lose it. Simplification for SMEs is important. The concern is the banking requires clarity and truth. And that means if we simplify too much, the money will go only to the big ones. So we will undermine the SMEs. How? Commission wants to prevent this. And last but not least, do no significant harm regarding the substances of very high concern. This is very clear. They can be used only when there is no alternative. So the benchmark is there. Why? Commission is planning to undermine the protection of health and environment. For which purpose? Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “(16:51:46 – 16:55:07): Thank you very much sir well one more thing that the extreme right is pro life and they're not and equally you know it's very clear that there is the ideology on on on their side and lack of comprehension in terms of reading because yes the major conclusion is and we heard it the first words from the court of auditors life works the strategic specific part of the audit are the strategic pros projects work and deliver and i have to say you know seeing the beneficiary in spain on the looking at the strategic project at cross border which is honestly public authorities not the ngos dear colleague you know ten million eleven million eight hundred ninety seven thousand euros going to the public authorities from cross borders cross border life project in pyrenees delivering the results since when public authorities are ngos so you can deduct this from this there are millions and millions going to public out authorities millions and millions going to companies and i think this is something which we have to equally the project in poland on the podkarpacie voivos chips which you know is actually about protecting life like the real lives of people who are dying from air pollution and addressing the energy poverty maybe that's not what the ecr that that piece to be specific cares about more about having some of its former ministers seeking asylum with orban because of corruption proceedings talking of corruption and transparency now i have to say that for me the findings of the audit are something which is really important and as colleague wiesek said i see there's something which is a broader cross cutting recommendations because we should indeed be better in looking at how we follow-up and have certain limits there because honestly the follow-up on the seven hundred billion euros of of the rff is something which is equally limited and having visited recently and discussions in the court of auditors is something which is gonna be a challenge for us in the eu the follow-up on the funding to companies the funding to agriculture everywhere is something as a challenge and we should look at it but at the same time we should not create a massive red tape because simplification is the cause of the day so we have to actually choose and find the right balance which is not gonna be easy and last but not least farmers i have to said that the colleagues from epp left but this is something where indeed the far the structural projects because this is what we're talking about from life are helping for example in netherlands to protect the precious water that the farmers are missing and this is something which is fundamental equally in slovakia protection from the carnivores is thanks to the far thanks to life and helping the farmers and to conclude i couldn't resist i'm sorry as opus said life is life no no no no thank you”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Let's finally. Face it. And. Name it properly. We have an addiction problem. The world. Europe. We are still addicted to fossil fuels. And addiction kills. Let's be honest, it's the tens of thousands of people just in Europe that die every year because of the heatwaves, due to the climate crisis. It is the destroyed livelihoods of farmers and foresters and you can go on. It is the migration waves due to the climate crisis. The crazy thing is we still finance the addiction with public money, and we let those dealers have a more and more say. I think this is one of the challenges that we need to deal with. We need to stop listening to the dealers. We need to stop subsidizing the dealers. And we need to go on a proper detox because dealing with the climate crisis is saving lives. I keep on hearing about how lives are important. So let's start finally saving the lives of our people. Not just the future generation, but today's generation to become stronger, more powerful and self-reliant. Europe in a healthy world. Thank you. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Thank you. Next speaker is Lena Schilling, Commissioner.”
  Fossil fuels
• “And I think this is something where I think the European law that would help to replace the fragmentation of the market would potentially open it to the competition. And I would like to hear from all the panelists, actually, your view on this, uh, going to uh, also to, um, the urban planning. I wonder, uh, what do you see? As the obstacles to use of the kind of higher use of the brownfields? Being the rapporteur on this legislation, we are taking up too much soil and not leaving contaminated soil aside. And I think this is a big problem we need to challenge and what can be remedied from the European level, if anything, and also whether you see a difference in terms of the attitude between rental housing projects and basically projects that are designated for sale. And also whether you see, uh, the difference between state owned and municipal and regional owned, and I think this is where I keep on using the Viennese example can help it. Uh, and this is something which is really important. I think the municipalities are much closer to people and are the best place, not the state itself or the member state itself, but the Municipalities need to be supported in developing long term rental housing, and I would like to hear the views on that, because that creates also the best space for urban planning and lowers the pressure, because, no, you cannot invest into having five rental homes or flats. You can only have one. And I think this is again where it might be balancing the market. So I would like to hear the views there. Thank you.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “Thank you very much and welcome, Commissioner. Two areas, but first one intro. We shall not forget that our dependence on imported fossil fuels is the primary cause of the energy crisis. And this is something we should repeat again and again and again. It was naivety to believe that the Russian gas will be cheap and forever and to blame Green deal is simply a lie. The first issue is regarding the market design. I think especially for the electricity. I think that what we have as a problem is there is too much speculation out there, there is too much withheld assets that are not producing basically to drive the cost up. When you hear on one side from a major electricity producer in Europe that you know they have too much assets and the consumption is too low, and at the same time you have record prices. Something is wrong. What are you going to do about the future markets? Because the margining principle there, originally invented, by the way, by the Enron leaders. And we know where that led is something that is still actually damaging even the big players on the market due to the speculation. So how are we going to address the issues of speculation within the market? Second, heating and cooling was already mentioned. That's super important also for the energy prices for the households, especially as well as the industry. And I'm wondering on the energy on the heating and cooling plant, what are you going to do in terms of the geothermal? This has a major potential in Europe, which is still widely unused. And are we going to approach the heating and cooling and heating also for the industry as an industry policy, because it's also about where do we produce the components, where do we buy them from and how we can actually improve our competitiveness from this. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “And I'm not talking about only the climate justice towards the global south. That's a big problem. But we forgot about the climate justice back home. And yes we forgot about the challenges that the industry is facing, not from a perspective of trying to transform it, but from a perspective of actually, we've been lagging behind in Europe. And I think in this respect, it's really, really crucial that indeed, we have a very clear predictability that we don't go on changing the rules, but also that we clearly say this is this is about a business case and don't undermine the, the really fundamental direction. So my question is there is the commission on this perspective. How are you seeing and also the stakeholders, how are you seeing the upcoming proposals for the Multiannual Financial Framework? Because this is where it's about the money. This is where about, you know, the billions of subsidies to fossil fuels that we still live in Europe. You know, everybody complains about China and hearing about, you know, China investing into coal abroad. Well, we are subsidizing fossil fuels in billions and billions and billions here in Europe when we will finally turn it around and we will finally actually help people rather than, you know, the big incumbents holding the power over fossil fuels. Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you very much, chair, and welcome the directors. It's really great to have you here. Now, as might be expected, my comments and questions go to Echa. Uh, first of all, let me appreciate all the hard work done by the agency in not really easy conditions and appreciate also because I was talking with the chemical users, and I think this work of Echa is really, really crucial not only for the chemical industry, but for all the chemical Users, especially the SMEs. And one of the important things they saw was the list of chemicals of very high concern. So the priority list that the ECA is publishing, based on the scientific data as the list of the substances that will require closer look and potential regulatory action. And this is something which is providing the chemical users with a really crucial information about the substances that the science is saying are problematic and gives them additional time and gives them the early warning to start looking for available alternatives. And I think in this way they are under less pressure when the regulatory action takes. So one question is how or what do you think would be needed more to disseminate this scientific information between the chemical users and where you see the role of Jacob versus the role of the member state competent authorities in this? Second, given the incredible load that you have, not only with the reach work, but also with biocides and all the microplastics and all the other substance areas. How do you see that? Very bluntly, you can go on without the ICA founding regulation and having more stable financing, because this is a speciality. We are not having such a stable financing as other agencies. And last but not least, uh, where do you see the potential in terms of the PFAS restriction? Uh, to kind of speed it up by addressing, uh, different uses? So kind of test running the essential use approach, because there are indeed essential uses, uh, Are where, sadly, there are no alternatives yet. But also there are vast number of not essential uses, be it, you know, outdoor clothing where the alternatives are widely available. And I think where a swift regulatory action in terms of restriction is possible. Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “But this is something which is opening the loopholes for the import. And sadly, the proposal from the Parliament on rapporteurs goes even further to six and a half years. So we will be tabling compromises really to keep it and increase it as little as possible from the current one half years, because I can't believe that we should have toxic chemicals that we know about that can be replaced, that are alternatives, that are not needed for so long on the market, and especially put additionally on the market when it comes to the labeling? Uh, yes, there are Russia. There are definitely changes And especially in the B2B sector, these are not consumers. These are professionals and they get the safety data sheets online. So I think the move is definitely important. And um, uh, of course the consumers should be informed now the, the deadlines that as well are a bit worrying because what's happening is the commission moved to one and a half from six months to as soon as possible, which is hard to enforce. So I think we need to have a clear date and let's discuss what's the date going to be. And, uh, last but not least, I'm really looking forward to look closer on the enforcement, especially when it comes to important products, because we have a big, big loopholes there. Thank you very much.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you for your point of order. I think this will be ignored. And this will be, I guess, discussed. Well, I guess this will be discussed, uh, within the discussions in the Conference of Presidents, but also in the Bureau regarding the organization of the plenary. I thank you for raising this point. And let me give the floor to the Commissioner. Hoekstra. Is there another point of order? Yes, but I would like to prevent starting a debate. So, yes, please try to stick to point of order.”
  EU public communication strategy
• “And dear ministers, welcome. Let me start with chemicals. The reach was already quite extensively mentioned, and I appreciate the interest of the Danish presidency in making sure that there is a progress. Uh, having said that, I'm wondering, and I would like to hear more, uh, readout regarding the particularity. So, uh, if you could enlighten us more on what is your position vis a vis issues like registration of the polymers or how do you see this, but also very important things that can deliver both on, uh, the simplification for the industry and the increase of the protection of human health environment, namely the uh, generic, uh, approach to risk management, but also assessment factors, because indeed, uh, we need to simplify and indeed, uh, we can and have to do it while increasing the protection of health, staying with the chemicals. I'm wondering what the presidency's take on the ongoing PFAS pollution crisis, uh, with the incredibly growing costs of the decontamination not on the sites under decontamination of the drinking water that is appearing across the Union. Well, in the countries where the PFAS are actually being measured. Because, let's be honest, there is an iron curtain. There is apparently no PFAS real problem in Slovakia, Poland or the former Soviet bloc because it's not being tested. And a big part of the issue. But I'm wondering whether there is also any effort to, by the Danish presidency to pressure the Commission to accelerate the restriction of PFAS, at least in the consumer products.”
  PFAs · Chemicals regulation
• “And last but not least, how can we actually take it as something that and I think this is the risk that we face with the Epbd implementation is, oh, we have these commitments and obligations, which is very negative. And I think this is where I think we should talk more about the really the opportunity to have a cheaper energy costs, opportunity to create new jobs and the opportunities that we need to use to have better lives, that the people can have better lives rather than Obligations under the Epbd because then you see you have negative reflection on it rather than something that you know. Do you want to pay half the cost for the energy? Of course you do. I'm now here in Brussels. The building we live in underwent reconstruction is not yet done, but, um, basically the insulation recuperation and the heat pump or something with the photovoltaic or something which are immediately starting to lower the cost. And I think this is what people don't understand. Thank you.”
  Energy performance of buildings
• “Thank you very much and welcome, Executive Vice President. Now, to start with, chemicals promised I. Besides the expected action on the PFAs, I'm wondering whether there's going to be any action from the side of the Commission on the Endocrine Disruptors. If you look at the vote we had on the chemical omnibus, there were only a few votes missing from changes requiring action on cosmetics, on endocrine disruptors. And I think this is a definitely an area which needs the commission's attention also for the sake of circular economy. Second, in terms of the energy, uh, I'm wondering whether the Commission is planning any action or anything to do vis a vis the overall design of the market, especially the bidding zones, and intervened to assess competencies here. Uh, and second, uh, what are, uh, if there are any updates on the planned actions vis a vis the geothermal action plan, especially the next generation geothermal technologies, because this is a baseload that is available everywhere. Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “There exists a relevant precedent from 2022, in which the Commission for the first time restricted the placing on the market of the treated articles as a part of risk mitigation measures for biocidal substances to be applied in accordance with article 58 of regulation 5 to 8. Eight. 2012. The Commission has not applied similar measures now for the approval of the NCPa as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product type six. The Commission claims the proposal will ensure a high level of protection of human health and environment will have the effect of fostering the search for alternatives, but if alternatives were to be made available even more so, the risk mitigation measures on authorizing or not the placing on the market of the product treated with this endocrine disrupting biocide for which alternatives would become available would make sense. And truly, even though no member state has proposed not approval, a premise that endocrine disrupting substance has a safe threshold because it is naturally occurring and in human bodies would be a precedent for endocrine disrupting substances. The Absences. The discussion about this should have been first and in other fora. Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “And I just want to comment on two things. One thing it's echoed really the importance of following a targeted approach. And if we want to make sure this changes to the cbam are approved, and I think they are good. And I was checking the potential loopholes, and I appreciate that the commission really tried to make it in a way that will not create loophole for, you know, uh, backdoor imports of larger quantities under the diminished threshold. I think this is important that we really proceed with it fast and not open additional articles. It doesn't mean that we should not have a discussion about how to improve the ETS. Um, and this is something which I believe then would prepare us better for the later proposals from the Commission. I just want to also react to, uh, a bit to the intervention from Alexandr Vondra, because honestly, it's interesting to hear the criticism of of the Cyberman ETS from the members whose party is leading a government that voted in favour of the Cbam. And I find it slightly ironic. So I hope that we can engage in more pragmatic conversations. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much, chair. And just a remark. Actually it's really ironic to see no one from ECR nor Patriots present here, but hey, what should I say? But it's good to take notice. And thank you, distinguished guests, for the really interesting presentations. Uh, the low carbon summit indeed. And you just named some of the issues and I think this is something where I'm even questioning to which extent it is, the way the standards are set by, to a large extent, industry itself, of which the majority of the large players producing 100% clinker Portland cement, which basically the mixtures can already now. So lower percentage clinker cement can already now be safely replaced, and a number of producers are producing lower clinker cement, yet they cannot be legally used.”
  Construction products