Eero HEINÄLUOMA

Policy topics Eero HEINÄLUOMA is active on

What Eero HEINÄLUOMA has said (56)

• 2025-10-23 “P-004182/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Political Advertising Regulation 1 does not ban political advertising, nor does it regulate the content of political ads. To support the effective implementation of the Regulation, on 8 October, the Commission published guidelines 2 with practical guidance and detailed explanations on the definition of political ads and obligations for the different actors involved in political advertising, including online platforms. A dedicated Network of contact points has been established for cooperation at EU level among Member States and with the Commission on all aspects of the Regulation. A new stakeholder Expert Group will be established by the Commission to monitor and collect practical feedback on the application of the Regulation. The Commission will also organise an implementation dialogue in 2026 to draw insights as necessary from the application of the rules. The Commission is aware of the commercial decisions of providers of online platforms to discontinue offering political advertising services. The Commission is engaging with these online platforms as well as with other stakeholders and Member States to monitor and support the application of the Regulation. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/900 provides common transparency standards for political ads and addresses the targeting and ad-delivery of online political ads relying on the processing of personal data, upholding the fundamental right to data protection - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/900/oj/eng. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C_202505514.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2025-05-08 “E-001858/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The recent internal reorganisation of Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, including the discontinuation of the unit specifically dealing with social economy, does not reflect a shift in policy priorities, but aims at enhancing efficiency and streamlining social economy across industrial and single market policies. Social economy features in the Commission 2024-2029 political guidelines 1 which are reaffirming its commitment to reinforce Europe’s social model, promote social fairness and ensure that no one is left behind. Under the political leadership of Executive Vice-President for Social Rights and Skills, Quality Jobs and Preparedness, the Commission remains committed to supporting the development of the social economy, notably through the implementation of the action plan for the social economy 2 , and to ensuring that social economy actors can meaningfully contribute to the prosperity and growth of the single market. The Commission also maintains its support for cooperatives through various initiatives intended to promote its policy on small and medium-sized enterprises and by overseeing the implementation of Regulation No 1435/2003 on the statute for a European cooperative society 3 . At this stage, the Commission does not envisage appointing a new high-level official dedicated specifically to the social economy within the context of industrial and internal market policies. Nevertheless, the Commission remains fully committed to advancing the social economy agenda and ensuring its continued integration across relevant EU policies. To this end, the Commission is preparing a report on the implementation of the social economy action plan. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0778. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02003R1435-20030821.”
  EU industrial funding · EU policy on social criteria in public funding
• 2025-01-31 “E-000437/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is committed to ensuring that there are sufficient incentives for the capture, storage, and utilisation of biogenic carbon dioxide. The Competitiveness Compass for the EU 1 underlines that incentives will be developed to build a business case for permanent carbon removals to compensate for residual emissions from hard to abate sectors. The industrial carbon management Strategy 2 identified several measures to better support their development. This includes supporting research and innovation through various EU funding mechanisms, such as the Innovation Fund 3 and Horizon Europe 4 , as well as regulatory measures to better recognise their potential climate benefits. The EU Innovation Fund, established with revenue generated by the EU Emission Trading System (ETS), already supports carbon capture and storage projects in the order of approximately 10 million tonnes of CO2 per year becoming operational as early as 2027. The European Commission is also exploring options to address the utilisation of biogenic CO2 in place of fossil carbon in more sustainable products. By end of 2025, the Commission intends to adopt the methodologies for the certification of permanent carbon removal activities capturing biogenic CO2 with permanent storage. This is an important milestone for the integration of these activities in climate policies. The legislative proposal in 2026 will look at how permanent negative emissions could be accounted for and how they could be covered by emissions trading, if appropriate, including a clear scope and strict criteria for such coverage, and safeguards to prevent mitigation deterrence. This proposed review will also assess the accounting of the capture and utilisation of CO2 in non-permanent products. 1 COM(2025) 30 final. 2 COM(2024) 62 final. 3 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-funding-climate-action/innovation-fund_en 4 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• 2025-01-27 “E-000362/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission Connectivity is at the heart of our digital ecosystem and key for the competitiveness of the entire European economic area. Closing the innovation gap will require investment in stateof-the-art digital infrastructure, including modern fibre networks, 5G and 6G. The Commission continues working to improve access to secure, fast and reliable connectivity while safeguarding fair competition. For that, Europe can build on existing initiatives, e.g. for the development of 6G 1 and actions to scale up innovative technologies 2 , as well as on adaptations to its regulatory framework. In that sense, ensuring a regulatory framework reflecting technological and market developments is a key tool to support sufficient investments in future-proof networks. Along with the recent Gigabit Infrastructure Act 3 and the upcoming review of the European Electronic Communication Code, the announced Digital Networks Act will provide a modern set of rules for the new connectivity ecosystem, proposing solutions to improve market incentives to invest, reduce burden and compliance costs, and foster an integrated Single market for connectivity. Competition is developing 4 in the electronic communication markets, notably in many densely populated areas, where commercial access to competing networks is often not problematic. Despite this progress, some barriers may persist also in the future, in particular in rural or more remote areas. Some regulatory intervention in such cases may still be warranted and, national Regulatory Authorities should, in case of clear market failure, be able to intervene. 1 See the initiatives of the EU Smart Networks and Services Joint Undertaking (SNS JU) https://smartnetworks.europa.eu/ 2 One example is the development of 5G corridors, funded under the CEF Digital programme: https://digitalstrategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cross-border-corridors 3 See Regulation (EU) 2024/1309 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2024 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying gigabit electronic communications networks, amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Directive 2014/61/EU (Gigabit Infrastructure Act), https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1309/oj/eng 4 The electronic communication regulatory framework has been broadly successful in lifting barriers to competition and the number of markets that national regulators need to assess ex-ante went from 18 to 2 between 2003 and 2020, when the latest Recommendation on Relevant Market was adopted.”
  EU rules on digital competition · 5G
• 2024-12-17 “P-002992/2024 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is fully aware of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Mutual Evaluation Report (MER) of the British Virgin Islands dated February 2024 1 and the shortcomings highlighted therein. The British Virgin Islands have entered the FATF review process as a result of its mutual evaluation results. The jurisdiction has had a one-year Observation Period to work with its FATF-style regional body to address deficiencies before a formal review by the FATF. The FATF will assess the progress made by the jurisdiction mid-2025 and decide on next steps. As a member of the FATF, the Commission takes an active part in the FATF process in order to ensure that EU´s concerns are duly taken on board. 1 https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Mutualevaluations/bvi-mer-2024.html”
  Financial regulation
• 2024-12-16 “E-002966/2024 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission Energy price volatility is due to EU’s import dependency on fossil fuels. By 2040, renewables are expected to represent most of the EU energy mix, rising from 17% in 2019 to 56% 1 . To integrate large amounts of variable energy, non-fossil flexibility is needed via demand response and energy storage. Clean baseload generation like nuclear power is set to complement the future the energy mix for those Member States who decide to use it. Gaseous fuels will remain present but gradually take cleaner forms. The Illustrative Nuclear Programme, to be presented by Commissioner for Energy and Housing in 2025, will analyse the EU's nuclear energy landscape and investment needs. The Commission will also present a Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) Communication to support the development and deployment SMRs in Europe during the 2030s, building on the SMR Industrial Alliance. The EU Taxonomy recognises certain nuclear and natural gas activities’ contribution to accelerating the transition from more emission-intensive sources, under strict conditions. The recent Electricity Market Design reform in force since July 2024 2 puts forward tools supporting the development of flexibility, especially non-fossil flexibility. Member States will need to assess their flexibility needs, based on a European methodology. They will be able to support non-fossil flexibility solutions like demand response and storage through specific support schemes. Member States can also rely on capacity mechanisms for supporting flexible assets. As outlined in the Action Plan for Affordable Energy 3 , a significant boost to flexibility schemes with a quick implementation of the EU rules on market access for storage and demand response will be instrumental in lowering energy costs. 1 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Report accompanying the document: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Securing our future Europe's 2040 climate target and path to climate neutrality by 2050 building a sustainable, just and prosperous society SWD/2024/63 final. 2 Directive (EU) 2024/1711 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024, amending Directives (EU) 2018/2001 and (EU) 2019/944 as regards improving the Union’s electricity market design and Regulation (EU) 2024/1747 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024, amending Regulations (EU) 2019/942 and (EU) 2019/943 as regards improving the Union’s electricity market design. 3 Action Plan for affordable energy: unlocking the true value of our Energy Union to secure affordable, efficient and clean energy for all Europeans COM(2025) 79 final.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-11-27 “E-002671/2024 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU monitors the human rights situation in the Kyrgyz Republic very closely. The EU Delegation in Bishkek is in close contact with local civil society, human rights defenders and independent media, and regularly attends trials of journalists, human rights defenders and nongovernmental organisations and cases where human rights are suspected of having been violated. Individual human rights cases and general concerns in relation to human rights are raised during meetings with the Kyrgyz authorities at every level, and most recently at the 14th Human Rights Dialogue held on 21 November 2024 in Bishkek. Throughout 2024, the High Representative/Vice President issued statements on developments of concern, including on 2 April 2024 on the adoption of the ‘Foreign Representatives’ law 1 . The case of Temirlan Sultanbekov has been raised by the EU Delegation with the Office of the General Prosecutor, and the authorities have been urged to ensure Mr Sultanbekov’s right to access to justice and to medical care. In early 2024, the EU Delegation – in response to shrinking space for civil society – published a call for proposals 2 specifically aimed at supporting civil society. Additionally, in 2024, the EU adopted a EUR 5 million programme in support of civil society organisations operating in the area of human rights, gender equality and youth empowerment. The EU-Kyrgyz Republic Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement 3 , signed in June 2024, provides a strong framework to boost further political dialogue and closer engagement on fundamental freedoms, human rights and democratic values. 1 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/kyrgyz-republic-statement-spokesperson-new-legislation-foreignrepresentatives_en 2 Support to Civil Society initiatives in the Kyrgyz Republic, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kyrgyzrepublic/support-civil-society-initiatives-kyrgyz-republic_en?s=301 3 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10660-2022-INIT/en/pdf, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/factsheet-enhanced-partnership-and-cooperation-agreement-between-eu-andkyrgyz-republic_en”
  EU-Kyrgyzstan relations
• 2024-10-07 “P-001974/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Vestager on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the challenges created by the development of artificial intelligence (AI) regarding the consumption of energy and for CO 2 emissions. That is why Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 1 (the AI Act) includes environmental sustainability among the issues that a voluntary code of conduct could address. It should be noted that these voluntary codes of conduct are not limited to AI applications presenting particularly elevated risk profiles but include any kind of AI. Moreover, according to Article 53(1)a, read in conjunction with Annex XI Section 1(2)e, of the AI Act, providers of general-purpose AI models which are trained on large data amounts and therefore prone to high energy consumption are required to disclose the energy consumption of their models. This obligation will be further specified through the Code of Practice, for which the process has been kicked off with a first meeting on 30 September 2024. In parallel, the Commission is launching a study, proposed by the European Parliament, to measure and foster energy efficient and low emission AI in the EU. The first results of this study can be expected in 2026. Since the AI Act has only just entered into force and does not yet fully apply, it is too early to draw any conclusions as to the effectiveness of its provisions. However, by two years after the date of application of the AI Act, the Commission is requested to submit a report on the review of the progress on the development of standardisation deliverables on energy efficient development of general-purpose models, and four years after the entry into force the Commission shall evaluate the impact and effectiveness of voluntary codes of conduct, including as regards environmental sustainability. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj”
  Climate efforts
• 2024-09-02 “E-001595/2024 Answer given by Mr Reynders on behalf of the European Commission In May 2023, Hungary adopted legislation which significantly strengthened judicial independence. This reform fully implemented the relevant recommendations set out in the 2022 Rule of Law Report, as confirmed in the 2023 Report, a conclusion maintained by the 2024 Report. The Commission’s analysis of compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union horizontal enabling condition was carried out under the rules of the Common Provisions Regulations (CPR). Since Hungary submitted compelling evidence that the relevant issues concerning judicial independence were addressed, the Commission adopted its decision within the deadline foreseen in the CPR. The issues covered in this process are different from those covered by the recommendations set out in the 2024 Rule of Law Report. The Commission is closely and continuously monitoring the application of the measures put in place by Hungary. If, at any point in time, the Commission considers that this horizontal enabling condition is no longer fulfilled, expenditure for programmes and specific objectives impacted by the non-fulfilment will again no longer be reimbursed. The President of the Commission’s political guidelines clearly state that the respect of the rule of law is – and will be – a must for EU funds. The mandate for the Commissioners-designate include clear tasks in this respect, such as ensuring that EU funding also be dedicated to national measures, for example on fighting corruption, and to protecting the EU financial interests and building a closer link between the recommendations in the Rule of Law Report and financial support under the EU budget. The future long-term budget proposal will include strong safeguards on the rule of law – including the general regime of conditionality, applying to all EU funds.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “So may I thank for for all the colleagues who spoke. And I have to say, also hearing your comments, that we are quite much on the same page. Of course, we have to concentrate in our in our text on the mandate of Econ committee, which is the financial staff and the need for financial cooperation. And this is also important from the point of view that UK still is the number, I would not say number one, but among the the numbered one, 2 or 3 really important financial capitals in Europe, and it's utmost important for us that UK will have the same standards as we have in in all areas, and we are not getting any kind of free, free ride phenomenon in, in Europe. So this is an important file and important comments from our side, and pretty sure that there will be no debate in the final text when the Parliament will give its opinion. Many thanks for your comments and look forward for constructive cooperation tomorrow and after that. Also.”
  Financial regulation
• “Your Honor. Good afternoon, Mr. Minister. You said that corruption is still present in our societies, as statistics shows. And this is one of the things which we cannot accept. We cannot accept in EU programmes, and we cannot accept in EU institutions or we cannot accept in our Member States. From the published, we have noticed that there are also some high profile corruption cases in in Hungary. And of course, this is also raising some concerns as you are working as as a president. Country of the union. You mentioned in, in your EU presidency programme that there is need for continuing anti-corruption activities in EU. I would be interested to hear what kind of practical things you are aiming to do during these next weeks and a couple of months before the end of your presidency. And the second question is that how you are tackling this question in Hungary? Because of course, always the presidency country is also an example. What are you planning to do in Hungary?”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “Thank thank you, Mr. Chair. And really big package. Really crucial that we are designing it very well. And we also draw lessons from past experiences. And here of course I'm thinking especially about the RF. And I'm really happy to hear what Commissioner Serafin told us as oppose first time that there are really some changes from the rough practices. We know that the Court of Auditors has been really critical towards the money spent, and the problems in getting the real results from this money spending, and the problem has been that after five years, we don't really know where the money has finally ended up. So problems are no verification, of course, which has been already mentioned here. This condition, in the assessment of milestones and targets and also reliance on national management and control systems. Now I am interested to hear that. Are there any other changes which the Commission is ready to make concerning the rough practices from the experiences, and also taking into account the criticism coming from the Court of Auditors aside. And how can you guarantee to Parliament that we can do our work, which is evaluate the spending and the use of money, and also to see that the targets are really fulfilled as they have promised to do. And we can do a real an informed discharge decision.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. And may I also Will welcome you to our committee. And in these turbulent times of, of, of the whole world and also in in our economies, it's really good to have someone who is coming from an organization focusing on stability and really appreciate your presentation also. I have three questions in my mind. First, I would like to continue the discussion on stablecoins and here, especially the jointly issued by European Union and third country entities, which is something which you have been discussing during recent months and years, quite often. Now we have the Misp package on the table, and it seems that there could be an opportunity to create some clarity and legal certainty. But from an FSB perspective, how do you assess the risks and vulnerabilities a little bit more what you have said. What we are running today in an absence of clear regulatory framework. And how do you see how urgent is it that we could regulate this third country entities and their issued stablecoins? Then second question, I would also like to continue the discussion on the private credit markets. Um, I would hope to hear you a little bit elaborate more on the impact of risks in this market, which are perhaps materializing now. And then what's your evaluation that what's the European Union regulatory preparedness in, in, in case something goes really wrong as it is now this regulatory landscape. And then my third question is, is coming from the securitization discussion, which is also on the table of the of this committee now. And I suppose there is some kind of overall attitude that we have to accept a little bit more risks concerning concerning the the rules. But then the big question is that how long will we go? And what what are your comments concerning the securitization discussion? What is going on here and in in Brussels? Thank you.”
  Use of stablecoins
• “Thanks. And may I also thank you for the Court of Auditors for the valuable work. The big question, of course, here is the performance based delivery model. And this has been discussed during the. Presentations also earlier. Much of this has focused on what we should not repeat. But at the same time, we should not overlook what has worked here. I'm thinking especially about the audit and control milestones. I understand that both the court and the Commission have acknowledged that these milestones have strengthened national systems and created incentives for Member States to improve their management and control frameworks. They have also been important for ensuring that member states that violate European Union values, like rule of law, do not benefit from EU funding. In Hungary's case, to audit and control, super milestones have meant that all payments are blocked until the government makes the required improvements. So I would be interested in hearing what is the assessment of the Court of Auditors of the Commission's proposal concerning this type of horizontal conditionality? Could this approach work as a permanent feature in the next MFF?”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “In your written replies, you recognize that some risks of substitution between the RF and cohesion funds have materialized. And this is also the information coming from Echa. So could you a little bit elaborate more of the magnitude of this substitution effect? To what extent have member states used other funds for projects that would, in any case, have been taking place just under cohesion policy? And what's the meaning here for the added value of RF if this is a common phenomenon? And then finally, third point in its annual report notes that for 64% of open audit recommendations related to critical and very important findings, the deadlines have already passed. It recommended that the Commission to analyse the reasons for delays in implementation and consider applying flat rate, flat rate reductions by the end of 2025. So could you give an update on this? What are the reasons that Member States are late in implementing these recommendations? What conclusions does the Commission draw from these delays?”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Against this background, we should ask whether risks are well captured in the existing regulatory framework. I am not in favour of the status quo, but not, I am afraid, also of the future. Given the fast evolving nature of AI developments as well as its relatively novelty, I think it's a bit hard to say that all risks are already properly covered today. I would rather say it's a little bit the opposite. For this reason, the categorically excluding all new sectoral legislation to regulate AI in financial services is definitely a too hasty conclusion. Indeed, we all know there are big concerns about the quality and the accuracy of the data used, but it does not stop there. We also all know our dependencies and the concentration of third country providers. And we can ask, is this healthy? Do we have proper safeguards in place? Furthermore, do we fully understand the algorithms used by the models in particular, given the already quite low financial literacy also in the European Union? Just a few observations which we should take in into consideration, I believe. Then I'm looking forward to good cooperation with the rapporteur and colleagues towards a balanced and constructive report. As I said, innovation is key, but only provided we set the right regulatory safeguards for it.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you. And I would like to continue the discussion on military mobility. And here I still remember that we accepted in the Parliament a recommendation when we made a decision on the 2023 discharge resolution. And in this resolution, the Parliament called on the Commission to substantially increase funding for military mobility. This is music for the commissioner. But at the same time, Parliament said that, uh, uh, we ought to prioritize funding to projects that best respond to the current European threat landscape. And now we can see that the military mobility program is really oversubscribed and there is significant absorption capacity, especially in frontline countries at the EU external border to Russia and Belarus. So I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner that have you taken into account this Parliament resolution, and which kind of plans do you have to fulfil this recommendation?”
  Defence spending
• “And global economy was under the threat of falling to a standstill after the Covid pandemic. It hit our societies with the force that had not been seen before. Strong action was needed and we responded to the challenge by the EU Recovery Instrument. However, five years after the recovery instrument decision, we are still in a situation where more than half the money is unused. The transition to renewable energy and to a digital to a digital society has accelerated. But there are clear and significant shortcomings in our work, as shown by the European Court of Auditors. When money is still unused, we also need to assess critically whether the aid package was originally properly calibrated and designed. At the same time, there is a need to develop the administrations And of member states to enable them to receive EU support in a transparent way for the benefit of citizens.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thanks. And may I also thank you for the Court of Auditors for the valuable work. The big question, of course, here is the performance based delivery model. And this has been discussed during the. Presentations also earlier. Much of this has focused on what we should not repeat. But at the same time, we should not overlook what has worked here. I'm thinking especially about the audit and control milestones. I understand that both the court and the Commission have acknowledged that these milestones have strengthened national systems and created incentives for Member States to improve their management and control frameworks. They have also been important for ensuring that member states that violate European Union values, like rule of law, do not benefit from EU funding. In Hungary's case, to audit and control, super milestones have meant that all payments are blocked until the government makes the required improvements. So I would be interested in hearing what is the assessment of the Court of Auditors of the Commission's proposal concerning this type of horizontal conditionality? Could this approach work as a permanent feature in the next MFF?”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “I would like to thank the rapporteur, Miss Bentley, for a really good draft report which puts forward good proposals to improve the competitiveness of the European Union in the biotech and bio manufacturing sectors, and highlight some of the bottlenecks to relevant industries that industries are facing. Biotech has been recognized as one of the ten strategic strategic technology sectors for Europe's economic competitiveness. Biotech and biomanufacturing can help reduce the EU's external dependencies and increase our strategic autonomy. It is crucial for the union to have a manufacturing capacity to produce medicines, high value materials, agri food and other applications and to remain at the forefront in innovation. On the other hand, pursuing a bioeconomy can improve resource efficiency through the potential of bio based materials, substituting fossil based materials which can reduce our dependence on imported raw materials and lower emissions across the different biotech and bio manufacturing sectors. Approval procedures for new products are very lengthy compared to our main competitors, which is driving innovation and jobs away from Europe. I believe we have to look for some balanced solutions to keep the European Union at the forefront of technological progress. I will therefore be tabling some amendments.”
  EU support for bioeconomic applications
• “Yeah. Once more. Thanks for your presentation. Still, one question perhaps could be mentioned here. And that's the big project of the commission, which is the simplification agenda. Is there something on your area of expertise which could be simplified?”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “(16:49:54 – 16:56:04): Thanks. And the starting point is really clear. It's 34 years since the creation of single market in 1992, allowing free movement of persons, goods, capitals and also services. We know that since then, Europe has changed dramatically. What hardly hasn't changed, Tof, is regulatory and supervisory fragmentation in the financial markets, and that's a pity. A problem we all know for a long time, which seems to be hard to tackle effectively. And this comes at a cost, which in the end is picked up by EU investors, citizens, companies as clearly outlined by the IMF. Internal barriers within the single market are equivalent to 45% tariff on goods and 110% tariff on services. So it's obvious this miss package is long overdue. It's therefore key to stick to this political momentum and make ambitious progress. Looking at the master regulation, my group welcomes ambitious reforms into trading and post trading landscape. There should be no taboo, be it in the field of stock exchanges, CSDs, CCPs, caps. These are all critical entities in the whole financial architecture. However, they are in in the 1st place facilitators or that's what they should be. And that's what we should do with this package introducing reforms which facilitate to ensure investors and EU companies get a better deal and can operate more seamlessly across borders under clear centralized supervision. Therefore, consolidation towards bigger groups can be positive to create more efficiencies. However, this should generate also more competition and better end prices for investors. This should be our main objective with this package. And as it is not sure, we have seen this so far neither in the trade or post trade landscape. We need ambitious reforms, not just cosmetic changes. 1 important question here is the question of thresholds of the scope. To me, this is quite simple. In is in regardless where the entity is based. We also need better interconnected post trade entities as the prices in the EU are far too high for these services. We also need in this package a solution for the multi issuance problem of stablecoins problem, which we have acknowledged before in this committee. If we are serious about an integrated capital market, which is efficient and delivers, all these points are no brainers. On the DLD part, we my group would be like to be on the side of real innovations, which can take place in an environment which is responsible from financial stability perspective. And then there is the question of supervision, which was already mentioned here. Rules which are not properly supervised are properly and properly enforced are not word to paper. After 40 after 34 years, more or less of modeling, it's quite clear we need a new start in this respect. We, therefore, need a strong ESMA responsible for supervising all significant entities, And we should provide it with effective tools and instruments which can bite and with the governance that is workable and which can decide swiftly and independently. On the master directive in particle, we need to set the bar of ambition high. We simply cannot continue with fragmented fund landscape regulated by usage and AIFFMD rules. Of course, there are also other reasons behind this picture, but the ESMA numbers are quite clear. 6,500 funds 65,000 funds in the European Union versus 7,500 funds in USA. Against this background, I welcome many of the commission proposals. It's positive that marketing notifications get streamlined and cross border distribution of funds gets easier. There is no place for cold plating in an integrated market. At the same time, it's clear that commission falls short on some other areas. Indeed, for example, the supervisory approach has access these risks to fall a little bit short towards the ambition and risks not to be future proof. This needs to be modified in the parliament. An integrated market can only function probably in a financial stable environment where investors are properly protected. In this respect, I believe the master directive can still benefit from some additional measures to address risks probably or whether we see that the market has failed. And finally, it's also essential that an investment fund industry who wants to reap the benefits of a fully integrated market also contributes its fair share to the European Union without any setting up of links towards noncooperative tax jurisdictions. To conclude, I look forward to work on this package with my colleagues towards a strong parliament position, position which will make this commission proposal even better.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “And this is at this point I'm also quite heavily concentrating on the need to make sure that, uh, that, uh, the not only the smaller small municipalities, but also the SMEs have real possibility to use this business wallet proposal. Then my second point, security and technological sovereignty. It's important that we are looking at the demands to make this as much as European solution as possible. And here I have some really important proposals also. Um, commission proposal is that business wallets providers must be European. And I fully support this. And I suppose this is quite easy to support from the whole Parliament also from the whole Parliament side. But at the same time, I think that this is perhaps not enough just to look at the providers of the wallets, as they will be a part of a larger ecosystem, such as the integrated Secure Communication channel and the supporting infrastructure providers such as cloud providers. In my view, this should also be European, and this is what I have proposed in my draft report. In addition to the sensitivity sensitivity of the data handled by the business wallets, I also suggest that the wallet data should be exclusively processed and stored within the union, and these amendments aim to strengthen the EU's digital sovereignty.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “So, Madam President, you have warned for the rise of the geopolitical risks towards our financial sector. And I still think that this is an acute thing which needs some, some notice also here we have seen that the Russian economy is deteriorating, but still they have the possibility to finance the war in Ukraine. I suppose it's in the interests of all of us here that Ukraine can get an just and lasting peace. And this means also that we have to be ready to finance Enhance the activities of of Ukraine. So we know that there are the Russian assets, which is the elephant in the room, and they ought to be used here in a legal and effective way. We know the concerns of the Belgian government, which is not very interested to use these resources. And we know took note also the announcement of the ECB yesterday that you are not very eager to stand up as lender of last resort. And that's the reason that I'm here asking you that. Can you see the importance of of the Ukraine case and to help Ukraine financially. And it's also important for, for financial stability. Is there something which ECB is ready to do in the interest of financial stability here.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you. And may I also welcome the former colleagues and nowadays commissioners to our committee here. Uh, on the other side, I'm not so sure if you ever have been ordinary MEPs, but, uh, in any case, you are most welcome. I try to present so soft questions as possible because this is your first time in country, so give you some pleasant memories from the count as a start. Two questions to Madam Virkkunen. The principle of excellence has long been the foundation for awarding EU R&D funding and has enabled Europe to produce world leading innovation. The report recognises this and states that within the European Research and Innovation system, including the Horizon Europe programme, there should only be one selection criterion excellence. Does the Commission agree with this, and how has this been reflected in the Commission's work so far? And how is this principle of excellence included in the proposal for the next MFF? Then secondly, I would like to follow up one of the written questions. You mentioned that the Commission is not monitoring after the end of a horizon project if results are taken forward for defence applications. Given that critical technologies can more and more be used also in military contexts, does the Commission consider that it would be warranted to monitor the use also after projects end? And does this mean that the Commission is currently not able to give us assurance that horizon projects have not been used in conflicts, for example, in Gaza?”
  EU research funding
• “In this respect and and calls for enhanced monitoring and regulation of these entities. Thirdly, AML, I fully support continued cooperation between the EU and the UK in areas related to tackling international money laundering and terrorist financing, countering harmful tax regimes, implementing sanctions and tackling customs fraud to ensure a level playing field and promote global financial stability. I fully support the commitment of the new UK government to crack down on dirty money effectively. We welcome its pledge to make beneficial ownership registers fully open to the public, also in British Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Fourthly, clearing over 90% of euro interest rates. Derivatives are processed at clearinghouses based in the City of London. It's clear that this massive exposure could represent a strategic risk to EU financial stability. Smes rules, as adopted in 2024, aiming to address this overreliance by introducing an active account requirement, which is a first step but should be developed at a faster pace than foreseen by the Commission. And to conclude, the financial sector is complex and Brexit did not make it easier. Therefore, cooperation and strengthening mutual understanding is key. I look forward to the comments of the colleagues and good cross-party cooperation.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• “We wish to improve Europe's competitiveness alongside economic competitiveness, social competitiveness. The well-being of societies and people must be fostered. There is no sustainable competitiveness without the well-being of nature and people. The United States is dismantling environmental standards, withdrawing from the from the Paris climate agreement and abandoning international cooperation. That may be the way for the US, but it is not ours. We need to simplify regulation and consult businesses on this. There is a case for reducing the reporting obligations of companies, but this must be done without lowering standards, without destroying nature, and without undermining the rights of consumers and workers. What is required of the Commission now is the ability to build a real and sustainable competitiveness that puts European values into practice, brings jobs to Europe, to every member states, and competitiveness which respects our egalitarian way of life.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “So may I also thank the rapporteur for for her draft report. Coming from a country which believes strongly in the strength of of an open, competitive economy. I'm fully aware of how important innovation is and that we should not miss the train. I agree with the rapporteur that the debate around the impact of AI in the financial sector should focus in first place on tangible questions. At the same time, we should neither be naive nor rush into it head first. It's enough to look at the investments undertaken by the financial sector in AI over the last months, only to understand this. This agenda goes further. These investments are not just done to streamline some operations or to pick some low hanging fruit. As outlined by experts, this technology has the potential to change the financial sector fundamentally. But this change need to be consumer centric and also safe. I believe some proper change here is good, but in the first place, to make the financial sector more efficient and competitive, to to provide better services for consumers. After all, the financial sector is an important supporting sector which should serve the needs of consumers. Key question here is whether AI applications in the financial sector have the potential to lead to a better service provision towards end consumers, without excluding anyone, and without putting financial stability at risk.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And also, I would like to express my gratitude that the Minister is here expressing the ideas of the Cyprus presidency. My team is the market integration and supervision package, which has already been mentioned here. And obviously you have a quite challenging file on your desk as presidency. My group believes that we should set the level of ambition high with this package, as this is key to give the EU kick start in our economy. And I totally agree with my colleague said earlier, in today's global world, EU cannot stumble further with the complete fragmented market organisation and this ought to be acknowledged, all of us and also all Member States. In the end of the day, fragmented regulation. Even if it is adopted with best intentions, is too often an obstacle for scaling up and has a price which is ultimately shifted towards EU citizens. So my question here is how are you planning to turn this package in a success which will support EU economy as a presidency? How do you consider the dynamic in the Council between different member States given, in the end, a lot of battles down to mutual trust? And what is your view on the activities of six member States wanting to go faster and further than others?”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “There is a discussion going on in Parliament, perhaps a little bit political one, but still it's continuing. It's crucial for Parliament and for the democratic decision making process that all parts of the societies have their Have a possibility to express their experiences and and comments on, on on the legislation which we are deciding here. And it's important that we have transparency in our activities. So I'm especially interested in the civil society organizations possibilities to express their views. And I would be interested to hear at this moment, does the Commission believe that the commercial business side and the civil society interest representation in the Union is now on an equal footing? Do we really have the possibility to hear the both parts of the society, both in the commission and, of course, in Parliament?”
  EU engagement with civil society
• “Then the third countries question. The commission proposal allows for the recognition of similar third country systems as equivalent to facilitate trusted global exchanges with non EU partners. While I'm open to this possibility, it's necessary to ensure the right safeguards here and I have introduced some amendments that prior to any agreement, the Commission should conduct a thorough assessment of the third country systems to ensure a high level of cybersecurity and data protection standards and the independence of the providers from the control of high risk entities. And then finally, we need a sensible timeline and practical and cost effective solutions for implementation. And therefore, I suggest that the Commission and Member States should develop a comprehensive implementation roadmap identifying key milestones and use cases within business to government and business to business interactions, especially for SMEs. So I hope a good cooperation. I'm pretty sure that we can do the work according to the timetable. Agreed. Interested to hear your viewpoints and ready to try them also on board. When preparing the Parliament's proposal for regulation.”
  International data transfers
• “Thank you and many thanks for your clear presentation and also for your nice words on the Parliament's own initiative report. I have some questions in my mind, similar to the concerns we have had around stablecoins and namely around money market funds. We all know that some types of money market funds are quite vulnerable in times of stress, as demonstrated during recent market turmoil and as outlined in international recommendations of the FSB. Then I'm looking at the MFF regulation and I would be interested to hear your opinion. Is there room for improvement in our own regulation, or is this regulation enough for us to cope with the problems?”
  Financial regulation
• “No follow up, but I would like to go to the question to the Court of Auditors. And here we all know that especially SMEs struggle to correctly apply the often quite complicated rules. The Commission has tried to address this problem, but as noted in the court's 24 annual report, the situation has remained pretty much unchanged. From the court's perspective. What could the Commission and the whole European Union to do to help SMEs have easier access to these funds and to decrease the number of errors? Could you give any suggestions here? Some effective measures also for the next MFF.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, may I may I thank my colleagues and also the Secretariat. Um, it has been important work and really also very constructive procedure when we have been preparing this file. Constructive amendments also I believe that a lot of the positions tabled in amendments they have been taking into account, and they are quite close to each other. Several of the amendments tabled are factual, correct statements, you can say, which I believe should get broad support. Variety of political topics is covered by several amendments, to name a few. Whilst the TGA covers financial services only, for a very small part, I will come to cross-party support for the set up of the joint EU, UK Financial Regulatory Forum and its activities so far. Then, on equivalence, obviously this is a more political topic. Of course, it's key that the European Union and the UK cooperate as much as possible. At the same time, the UK has left the union and is now a third country. So its legislation will be subjected to equivalence assessments. Despite some differences in tone also here, I believe the views are not too far from each other and a compromise should be possible. Then, on clearing several amendments, that's up on this topic showing its importance here, I think it's important to give a clear message. We would look into a separate text on this further, I think amendments highlighting the specific position of Ireland and Northern Ireland in Portugal should be supported. Also, the Competition Cooperation Agreement between the UK and EU national competition authorities is an important step, as highlighted in several amendments. I also welcome the amendments raising concerns about regulatory road. The UK seems to take in regulating crypto assets and then to conclude Thanks for colleagues. Look forward to your comments and your constructive cooperation. Tomorrow we have a political meeting in which we can go deeper into group priorities in the group's priorities, after which I hope to be able to share some draft compromises to you.”
  EU-UK data transfer
• “So, Madam Chair, thanks for the rapporteur and Secretariat, also for the draft compromises and for having organised already the first technical shadow meeting. Overall important topic for macro, as you can see on the number of members co-signing amendments around AI. The important is really to take a balanced and constructive approach, not a cheerleading or deregulating approach. It's positive that the draft compromises take already. Now some of the amendments on board. Nonetheless, to find a real balanced text which we could support, there is still quite some room for improvement. I will now focus on three main political points from my group. I will send you later some more technical comments. Firstly, of course AI has a big potential also and maybe in Portugal in the financial sector. However, we should not be blind for the risks because we know what happens if the risks are not taken into account. This should be spelled out more explicitly in the text. For example, we need to make sure that if something goes wrong due to an AI application, there ought to be someone who is liable for the mistakes and consumers should be able to seek redress.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you madam. In today's Financial Times, it's reported that John Wiggers, the architect of the UK's regulatory response to the financial crisis, has accused the Bank of England of making a mistake by cutting its estimate of how much capital the banking system needs. According to John, reducing bank capital requirements would simply fund higher payouts to shareholders instead of resulting in more lending. Rising macroeconomic risks are, and threats to the global trading system point to. A need for higher rather than lower requirements seems to be his opinion. Uh, if you compare the European banks to the UK banks, can you say that the European banks are in a better situation than the UK banks? Because here we also see the same phenomenon that the big banks with quite high risk portfolios are also asking for lower requirements. So which kind of risks do we have here compared to the UK?”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you. And some key priorities from my side in this draft report. First we have to look at this excellent proposal is also doable in practical terms and especially that it's doable for the small guys, the SMEs and micro enterprises, but also for the local small authorities. My second priority here is to enhance security and technological sovereignty, really important for the whole union. Thirdly, a balanced approach to dealing with third countries. And then finally, we need a practical and cost effective roadmap for implementation. First point about SMEs and local authorities. I have kept the business wallets as voluntary for companies as proposed by the Commission, and this, of course, is important for the needs of SMEs. The Commission has proposed a wide application for the public sector to enable the use of business wallets. I have received some feedback, especially from smaller municipalities, that they are worried about possible duplication with national systems. A low expected volume of transactions and disproportionate financial burden in adapting the wallets. And this is the reason that I have thought that it's important to look also these practical things and needs of the of the small municipalities. And therefore I am proposing at this point exclusion of the smallest municipalities, which means that those municipalities where you have less than 10,000 inhabitants, they would not be obliged to use the business wallet proposal.”
  Electronic identity
• “The war of aggression against Ukraine waged by Russia has threatened Europe's security in a very serious way. At the same time, America's unpredictability has shown us that we can no longer depend on others to defend us. We therefore have to build our own credible defense capabilities. This is a shared responsibility for all member States and it in particular affects the eastern border. The eastern flank is the first line of defense for all of Europe. Developing Anti-drone capabilities and air defense mechanisms are an important step in that direction. Europe has the right conditions to move forward in this respect. We have a solid industrial base, good capabilities in this area and above all, we have SMEs. We have to use their innovative capabilities and their strength together. Thank you very much. Now I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Tariq for one minute. **Cristian TERHEȘ: Towards Russia from the 1992 war in Moldova to Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 Encourage Putin to launch the full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the largest war in Europe since the Second World War, to remain free. We must take our defense seriously. First strategic defense flagship projects like the drone initiative, Eastern Flank Watch, Air and Space Shield are long overdue necessities. Europe must close capability gaps that have exposed our continent and ensure our eastern borders are protected. Second, we must dramatically improve military mobility. This means investing in modern roads, rails, bridges and ports, dual use infrastructure that strengthen our economies and security. Third war today extends beyond the battlefield. Russia wages constant cognitive attacks on Europe through disinformation, propaganda and reflexive control, shaping public opinion, influencing elections, and advancing policies that ultimately serve Russian interests. The radical proposal of the European Green Deal, which increased European dependence on Russian gas, is such an example. Thank you.”
  EU competences on defence
• “Madam Chair and congratulations Mr.. Is really important decisions. Also during this week I will concentrate on the defence omnibus. Many of these measures proposed by the commission. Now they really rely on the member States actually making use of them. The activation of national escape clauses. Safe loans, mid-term review of cohesion policy and now also the exemptions proposed under the defence omnibus. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that there is the elephant in the room and that is the huge difference in attitude towards the need of new defence measures and contributions. If you look at the national defence expenditure and also support for Ukraine, the situation differs a lot between member states. And in a way this was also the message coming from the NATO summit. So what extent do you believe that member states will actually use these measures? Is there enough incentives which you mentioned to strengthen efforts by member states in the entire union, and especially by those that are still falling short on solving the facts of burden.”
  Defence spending
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you for the really valuable information. It's quite clear that the European Union really needs a digital euro for all the reasons which you outlined. And I suppose we also need it quite urgently. So that's the reason to welcome the work of the ECB and also the Commission and hope to see the same determination also in this House. At the same time, I have to acknowledge that I'm a little bit confused by the approach of the commission around stablecoins, which have been mentioned here. We all know the spectacular growth, but also the massive risks. Only last week, The Economist described stablecoins as the money launderers dream. We know that Mica and the AML rules set a clear regulatory framework in the European Union to address these risks. However, despite the political agreement between co-legislators, we know that the Commission intends to adopt a Q and A deviating substantially from this political agreement by allowing a third country multisig with US stablecoins. Now my question is what are the links between financial stability, digital euro and stablecoins? And do you see a risk that if the if the launch of Digital Europe will take too much time? We have a lot of US stablecoins which can be risky for our financial system. And then I would also like to ask from Commissioner Dombrovskis that ah ah ah, is Commissioner ready to come to the econ to to answer our questions concerning stablecoins?”
  Digital euro · Use of stablecoins
• “Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the valuable presentation. We have heard. I have a couple of questions in my mind to Commissioner. The first is that, uh, we have really seen more and more hybrid threats During recent years, like instrumentalization of immigration, which has already been mentioned here in your written answers, you mentioned some of the measures the Commission has taken, like providing some emergency assistance and also a call for increasing the operational capacity of Frontex. However, the need to secure the union's external borders is something that also the parliament raised in last year's discharge resolution. So my question is that what lessons has the Commission drawn from the last year's experiences? Do we have the tools to react when hostile neighbouring countries like Russia and Belarus threaten, especially to frontline member states? Or is there something we ought to do totally differently to better to better protect our external borders. And what is the role of the European Union budget here when we are preparing the next MFF? And then my second question, the management of the most DGs home funds is shared between Member States and the Commission. As we know in the 2024 Annual Report, the Court of Auditors noted that this is a high risk area and pointed to some shortcomings in the work of national management and audit authorities. The Commission has accepted the recommendations given by the court. So could the Commission elaborate on how you plan on implementing these recommendations? And Mr. Chair, do I have the possibility to ask also a question to the Court of Auditors? So I would be interested to hear about the practical side of these things in the report. Court of auditors Authorities says that there is also problems in the work of audit auditors. Authorities in Finland. So could you elaborate a little bit more? Which kind of problems have you seen in the Finnish case?”
  Asylum & border control
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Safeguarding and promoting financial stability and a stable regulatory framework are critical for economic growth and economic resilience. And this try message does may not sound very well with the cheerleaders of deregulation, but it's an of absolute essence. Whatever happens on the geopolitical forum on financial stability, we cannot give in. Therefore, this is a very important report and I thank the rapporteur for a good first draft. Some specific comments from my side. Firstly, I fully support the idea that we need a full implementation of the Basel rules. This enhances resilience and create legal certainty. What the sector needs today instead of a race to the bottom. In addition, I agree with the rapporteur that entities from the non-bank sector could contribute to financial stability risks if not properly regulated. I therefore support the need of a thorough review of regulatory gaps in the field of non-banking financial intermediation. Like for family offices, and I call upon the Commission to come swiftly forward with the review of the money market regulation in line with concerns expressed on international and European level. Secondly, the crypto sector. Whilst overall still rather small, it's clear that inter-linkages risks of the crypto sector are rising. And in particular, given the actual regulatory stance in the USA in this respect. Mica was a first important step, but it's essential that the co-legislators address further existing regulatory loopholes. And thirdly, sustainable finance. Whether we like it or not, sustainable finance risks are there and they are increasing. And this is a financial stability risk to which the sector should be more prepared to agree with the principle put forward by the rapporteur on the need for enhanced data sharing to monitor stability risks better. However, this goes as well for the need of better collecting and enhancing of data around sustainability risks and to explore exposure of financial sector. To conclude, thanks for the draft and I hope we can introduce some elements around sustainability risks, exposure and look forward to good cooperation with the rapporteur and the shadows.”
  Financial regulation
• “Secondly, to ensure adequate levels of capitalisation and to protect financial stability, it is essential that amendments to the Capital Requirements Framework remain targeted to positions that have clearly a lower risk profile. Whilst of course not perfect, the newly introduced concept of resilience represents a meaningful step towards differentiating securitisation transactions in a more risk sensitive manner. And finally, and thirdly, it's essential to focus in the first place towards the true sale securitisation given its possible funding component. Of course, to ensure this effectively materialise, we need a system to monitor this. At the same time, looking at its booming numbers today, it's also clear there is no problem with synthetic securitisation in the union. There is therefore no need to facilitate this further via prudential adjustments. To conclude, it's key to get this package right and balanced, making the securitisation framework more risk sensitive whilst protecting financial stability. At the same time, this framework cannot become a free pass for certain banks to undermine EU banking rules in Portugal. In these challenging times, we cannot afford another crisis. Let's therefore work together towards a workable and sustainable securitization framework, which gives more money for investments but not put financial stability at risk. I look forward to constructive cooperation with the rapporteur and the shadows.”
  Financial regulation
• “Madam president, the new US administration is turning again to protection protectionism and wants to weaponise trade politically. In this situation, it is particularly important that the EU keeps defending free trade and opens up new opportunities for fair trade agreements that recognise environmental and social responsibility. If the Mercosur agreement will become reality, it would create the largest free trade area in the world, opening up a market of nearly 300 million people to European companies. Free trade, however, needs fair rules not only on the environment but also labour and consumer rights must be guaranteed. The EPP now has to ensure a requirement, a A requirement to comply with the Paris Agreement is included in the agreement. We have to make sure that the agreement is equitable for European farmers and workers. Only after this can the EPP European Parliament grant its consent to this agreement.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. And I would first like to apologise for MEP Lupo because he cannot be here today. But he asked me to express his comments. First, I would like to thank the rapporteur for this draft opinion. The draft faces crucial aspects also for our political group, with a focus on the potentially worrying consequences of the Commission's proposed general use of financing, not linked to costs. We know that the performance based financing model, already used for the Recovery and Resilience Facility has several shortcomings, including the inability to assess the impact of the expense and the increased risk of irregularities. Double funding and fraud. Reducing the transparency and traceability of EU funds. It's also very important to emphasize the role of Parliament as the discharge authority in order to guarantee democratic scrutiny, and that shared management in the next MFF must include local authorities and stakeholders to ensure their participation in the cohesion policy, design and control and our shadow is ready to cooperate also in the future in a constructive way.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. First I would like to thank Mr. Seekatz for his draft. Like him, I also welcome changes proposed by the Commission for simplifying the due diligence and transparency requirements. As long as we do not lose sight of sufficiently protecting investors and do not set arbitrary targets for achieving reporting reductions. Revising the templates could be a good simplification exercise, but should not come at the expense of data quality, usability, comparability, and effective supervisor. We should also leave open the possibility for adding additional categories of data, for instance related to ESG where appropriate. After all, investors understanding the credit risks and physical and transition risks of the underlying is the basis for sound securitization. Whilst I agree with the rapporteur that the existing prudential framework, since the financial crisis is potentially risk averse and that some recalibration may be really needed, I believe on the prudential part there is still quite some room for improvement and this for three reasons. Firstly, the ultimate objective of this proposal is to create a sustainable EU securitisation market which contributes to a more diversified financial system and enhances risk sharing across market participants. By doing so, it has the potential to free up regulatory capital for banks, enabling additional lending to the EU economy. However, this objective will be undermined by measures that promote risk concentration within the banking sector. If banks primarily invest in each other's securitisations to obtain capital relief, the system remains vulnerable and undercapitalized, reducing its resilience to shocks.”
  Financial regulation
• “More competitive Europe means investing in the digital and climate transitions and fostering more industrial production in Europe. It means also investing for quality jobs and strategic autonomy. A competitive EU industry also needs a strong focus on research and innovation to develop new technologies and to bring new solutions to the market. More resources for Horizon Europe and CEF are really needed. It is more important than ever to increase investments into renewable and clean energy. Ambitious electrification grids and cross-border infrastructure. The 2026 budget must respond also to the economic impact of the ongoing geopolitical instability, especially the EU's eastern border regions, which have been particularly affected by the suspension of cross-border trade as a consequence of Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you. Bis has recently highlighted the rapid growth of tokenized money market funds, noting that they replicate the structural vulnerabilities already observed in both traditional and MFS and certain types of stablecoins, particularly liquidity mismatch and the risk of abrupt technology driven and runs. So how do you assess the systemic relevance of tokenized MFS, and how would you address this emerging source of run and contacting risk?”
  Financial regulation
• “Thanks. And may I first also echo what my colleagues have been saying, the important role of NGOs in our society. They are really part of our democracy. And also for the decision making here, it's important that civic organizations have the possibility to meet. And they also have the resources to meet us and and to express their findings and their opinions, because obviously they don't have the big money with them. So the report is is most welcome. And but let's keep in mind that in our democracy, these organizations have a very valuable role to play. Then I would also like to to echo the words made by also the Commission representative and other people here, that the most important question for us is the transparency, and that is the role of the Commission to make sure that we know that which organizations are getting money and what are the reasons behind it. And then I have two questions in my mind to the to the Court of Auditors. And the first one is that in this report, calls on the Commission to proactively check if NGOs respect EU fundamental values when using EU funds.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “However, it seems so that between NGOs and commissions there are already all possible safeguards in this sense, as we have heard. And if I look the report, which is really interesting in the sample it analysed, they didn't detect any breach of EU fundamental values. So when we are looking at the enhanced due diligence demands, I cannot understand what's the reason to concentrate only to NGOs when we know also here in the budgetary control committee that private companies, companies has been said today, they also receive EU funding for advocacy. So my question to the, to the Court of Auditors is that how do you see these things. Is it so that due diligence should apply to all beneficiaries? And then the second thing, which was a little bit puzzling to me that I read from the press that when you have been preparing this report, you have met some of the members of our committee. So I would be interested to hear what was the reason to meet some of the members of our committee in preparing this report, and how did you select these members?”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “And I also would like to thank the rapporteur for your good draft report. I have to say that it reflects many of the issues that have been raised during the hearings this post autumn, also by our group. Uh, the draft report is totally according to the duties and the role of the Conte. So I do not see major disagreements with the draft report. Still, I would like to highlight a few key points that are important from our side, both for the discussion today and for the upcoming negotiations. First, on the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The discharge cycle. Much of our debate has focused on the RF, especially given the parallel discussions on the next MFF. The Court of Auditors has been very critical, pointing to weaknesses in control, audit and accountability, and questioning whether this model is fit for purpose. What is really worrying is that despite these repeated warnings, the Commission does not seem to be drawing the necessary conclusions. Second, on the rule of law. Experience shows that respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights cannot be taken for granted, even within the European Union. Our current legal framework has not been sufficient to stop continued backsliding, most notably by the Hungarian government, but also elsewhere. So we agree on the need to use the existing toolbox more robustly, while also closing loopholes like those that allow frozen funds to be transferred. And thirdly, and finally, thanks for the next thanks for the text on NGOs. Both the Commission and the Court of Auditors confirmed that life operating grants have been implemented in full compliance with the legal framework and the financial regulation. So I agree that scrutiny must be based on facts and applied equally to all beneficiaries. I would like to thank once more the rapporteur and I look forward for constructive cooperation also in the future.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Mr. president, dear colleagues with an effective pay tax much below 15%. Digital platforms do not pay their fair share in the European Union despite the profits being made here. And this is totally unacceptable. I try to explain this to your local bakery entrepreneur or teacher. People and companies who pay much more than the big technical giants. We have tried to tackle this multilaterally. However, multilateral solutions seems to be only dreams these days. Therefore, in today's new geopolitical reality, the European Commission should step up and push again for a European Union digital service tax. In a world where our main trade partner threatens the union, its citizens, its farmers, its workers and its factories with 50% tariffs on goods, this is the only fair response from our side. The Union and its citizens should stop being the financial milk cow of the foreign digital platforms. It's time to act.”
  EU taxation policy (political compass)
• “May I also thank the rapporteur for the good work, what he has been doing until now, and this is really an important own initiative report, as we know from the also the happenings from not only for decades ago, but what we have seen during recent years and months that financial stability is the prerequisite for economic growth. I have tabled several Amendments on various topics, and I would like to focus this time on three key points. Firstly, I fully share the rapporteurs concerns around the developments of possible risks in the non-bank financial sector and the need to keep monitoring these and close urgently regulatory gaps. It's quite clear that this should be done without putting the EU banking acquis in line with Basle Agreement in question on the non-bank financial sector in Portugal around money market funds. I call upon the Commission to come forward swiftly with the reform, in line with the recommendations on the FSB and the Esrb. Then, secondly, it's absolutely critical that this report has clear language around the risks for financial stability of crypto and in particular, stablecoins, given they have the similar vulnerabilities. Our abilities as money market funds. And given the fact that stablecoins transactions now occupy the majority of all illicit transaction volume. By the way, 63% of of all illicit transactions. And then thirdly, it's key for my group that this report has clear language around sustainability risks for financial stability or as also recognised in the ECB Financial Stability Review, as climate risks are materializing for more frequent, as we witness on a daily basis nowadays, a proper management of these risks and their impact is needed also with strict disclosure requirements and appropriate risk weights. I look forward for constructive discussions with the rapporteur and also with colleagues, to make sure that this House has a very clear message on safeguarding and promoting financial stability in these uncertain times.”
  Financial regulation
• “The war in Iran has demonstrated that we live in a vulnerable world. Energy prices have skyrocketed. Rocketed. The price of oil has exceeded $100 a barrel. That's what we're facing on a daily basis. We need to wake up and go further in renewable energy. That should be our goal for the next few years. The future of our energy resources should be assigned with sufficient budgetary lines. And so the financing of CRV should be a priority. We should also understand the importance of investing in defense and the defense industry as a whole. These are important priorities for the next year. And these are major topics on the agenda of the committee. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “We therefore absolutely want the reference towards AI liability regime reflected in this text. Given the importance for the financial sector, we cannot accept a procedural argument that AI liability would fall under the remit of Imco to be silent on this. And then secondly, yes, we have the AI act, which is a key piece of legislation and which should certainly not be pushed back. And whilst we have to avoid regulatory overlap, we certainly have to avoid also regulatory gaps and regulatory gaps exist as most of the legislation is adopted before the AI boom. Therefore, this need to be filled effectively. This needs to be explicitly spelled out in this text. And finally, we regret that only two types of financial sector applications are deemed to be high risk in the AI act. We want to see a clear call in this report towards the Commission that this list of high risk applications should be broadened to all retail financial services. This message should absolutely be reflected in this report. Once again, I thank the rapporteur for her work and will look forward For constructive discussion next week.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “So, madam, congratulations on the nomination and many thanks for your presentation and also answers to the written questions. Your CV is quite impressive and you also have a experience for many years from the Court of Auditors practical work. Still, I would like to ask a few additional questions specifically related to gender equality and women's rights. As a former member yourself, I'm sure you know these are key priorities for the Parliament. So first, in your view, does strengthening gender equality and women's rights fall naturally within the remit of the Court of Auditors work? Second, how have you worked to advance these goals in your career so far, including over the past six years in your role as member of the court? Third, how do you see yourself contributing to improved gender equality and women's rights going forward, if reconfirmed for a second mandate? And finally, I would like to raise a question on violence against women and girls, which, sadly, is still one of the most systematic and common human rights violations in our societies. Um, is there something which the Court of Auditors could also do to make sure that all the EU institutions are taking seriously the need to combat gender based violence?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion