Christophe CLERGEAU

Policy topics Christophe CLERGEAU is active on

What Christophe CLERGEAU has said (72)

• 2026-06-17 “President colleagues, today you have a choice to make. Depending European farmers and seed producers defending biodiversity or offering the control of plants and agriculture to just a few big agrochemical multinationals Bayer Corteva, among others. Two years ago, this Parliament voted almost unanimously against patents on plants and seeds. This Parliament voted to defend farmers to prevent life being privatized and to avoid the market being concentrated into the hands of a few non-European businesses. And I call on you today to confirm that choice. I'm asking you for just a few months to improve this text before it is definitively adopted. The right and the far right here claim to be defending farmers today. Everyone has their eyes on you. Will you be choosing European farmers, European seed producers, or Chinese and American multinationals? Make the right choice.”
  Sustainable use of seeds in EU policy
• 2026-01-05 “P-000009/2026 Answer given by Mr Síkela on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has been a key supporter of the Global Fund to fight acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), tuberculosis and malaria since its establishment in 2001, with a total contribution of EUR 3.5 billion. As the current Global Fund’s eight pledging cycle falls between two Multiannual Financial Frameworks, internal discussions on the upcoming pledge are still ongoing, with the importance of timely and predictable Global Fund’s upcoming allocations clearly taken into consideration. The Commission could not financially commit during the Eight replenishment summit in November 2025 while expressing its strong support to the principles and to the mission of the Global Fund. The Commission has clearly shown willingness to continue being a major partner and intends to contribute to the new cycle of the Global Fund along the lines of previous cycles.”
  Support for international humanitarian organisations · Global priorities for international development
• 2025-09-16 “E-003552/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission agrees with the Honourable Members that the recast Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 1 (UWWTD) represents a major milestone in the EU’s efforts to safeguard water quality, ocean ecosystems, and public health. The Commission is committed to the Directive’s effective implementation. As announced in the Water Resilience Strategy 2 , adopted on 4 June 2025, in the context of the implementation of the extended producer responsibility (EPR) system under the UWWTD, the Commission will conduct an updated study of costs and its potential impacts on concerned sectors. The update will focus on the cost of quaternary treatment based on the most recent and relevant data and changes in the adopted legislation compared to the Commission’s initial proposal. The update will also take into account inflation since the original impact assessment was done in 2022. This will provide a valuable update of the data underpinning the EPR system. Member States are responsible for the implementation of EPR provisions 3 . They will submit national implementation programmes 4 to the Commission, which are to include, when available, an estimation of the financial contribution from the producer responsibility organisations. To support Member States in developing appropriate EPR schemes, the Commission is holding extensive consultations and exchanges of information, experiences, and best practices between Member States and industry stakeholders. Notably, these exchanges 5 cover measures to ensure the effective implementation of the Directive. Finally, the Commission will have access to Member States’ data sets 6 on the implementation of other provisions of the Directive, on the basis of which compliance assessments will be conducted. 1 Directive (EU) 2024/3019 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 concerning urban wastewater treatment (recast), OJ L, 2024/3019, 12.12.2024. 2 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/european-water-resilience-strategy_en. 3 Articles 9 and 10 of Directive (EU) 2024/3019. 4 Article 23 of Directive (EU) 2024/3019. 5 Article 10.6. of Directive (EU) 2024/3019. 6 Article 22 of Directive (EU) 2024/3019.”
  Water pollution · EU policy on water management
• 2025-03-25 “E-001232/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 1 on the coordination of national social security systems, together with its implementing Regulation (EC) 987/2009, are key pieces of EU legislation that ensure the protection of social security rights for individuals moving within the EU, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. They establish common rules for determining which country's social security system applies to individuals in cross-border situations, while respecting the competence of Member States to define the specifics of their social security systems, such as beneficiaries, levels of allowances, and eligibility criteria. In December 2016, the Commission proposed to modernise the current rules to ensure that they are fair, clear and easier to enforce. The negotiations between the co-legislators are ongoing. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 also applies to frontier workers or other cross-border workers, including those in the Moselle department of France who worked in Germany and receive unemployment benefits in France. According to the current rules, for these groups of workers, the unemployment benefits are generally paid by the Member State of residence. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/883/oj/eng.”
  EU regulation of cross-border and posted workers · EU competences on social policies
• 2024-12-19 “E-003066/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The re-approval of a substance classified as toxic for reproduction category 1B is possible when exposure to humans under realistic conditions of use is considered negligible. The discussions at the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) were based on the findings regarding exposure in the recent scientific assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Dietary exposure is considered negligible as EFSA found that the residue levels are below the default value as set out in point 3.6.4 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 1 . For non-dietary exposure, the discussions in SCoPAFF focused on strict conditions to ensure that exposure is reduced to a level considered negligible. The proposed conditions include a use restriction in permanent greenhouses via a closed transfer system designed to avoid the exposure of operators during mixing and loading for application via drip irrigation. Although the study referred to by the Honourable Member had certain limitations, the data available suggest that exposure via air is unlikely 2 . To increase confidence in this conclusion, the proposed approval conditions include a requirement to submit a new study on non-dietary exposure as confirmatory information. EFSA considered the predicted exposure of bystanders and residents to be an overestimate; This is because the estimates in the EFSA conclusion were based on data from application by spraying, while the actual representative use is via drip irrigation in permanent greenhouses. Therefore, the resulting exposure will be significantly lower 3 . EFSA also concluded that exposure via volatilisation is low 4 . 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj 2 The study monitored the concentrations in air inside and outside the greenhouse and no peaks were found in any of the samples. The lack of detection peaks shows that exposure via air is unlikely and can be considered negligible. 3 As also reported in the EFSA conclusion, for example on page 27 ‘Predicted exposure to vapour is exceeding the (A)AOEL for children, but these values are very likely overestimated due to the model assumptions as it is based on data for spray application and not for drip irrigation. (RMS suggested that the product should only be applied in high-technology greenhouses, preventing the exchange of vapours of the active substance with the outside. During the peer review meeting, the experts agreed that this should be considered at Member State level for national authorisations)’. 4 See page 9 of the EFSA conclusion ‘This was considered possible for the drip irrigation use because the substance Henry's Law constant is below 1 Pa m3 mol −1; this indicates active substance volatilisation would be low, so minimising the possibility for its condensation on greenhouse structures’.”
  GMOs
• 2024-12-19 “E-003064/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is considering together with Member States amendments to Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 1 ‘Plant Protection Products (PPP) Regulation’ and the relevant Guidance document 2 , aiming to improve efficiency for conducting comparative assessments while respecting the legal provisions of Article 50(1) of the PPP Regulation. Work is still on-going. Stakeholders will also be consulted in due time. The Commission would like to recall that in its decision of 22 August 2024 3 , the European Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration by the Commission in relying on the relevant standard developed by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO). Whether or not that standard remains suitable for use in the EU or needs to be revised will depend on the outcome of the abovementioned work on potential amendments to Annex IV and the related guidance. The Commission would like to recall that EPPO is an independent intergovernmental organisation which governs its policy regarding conflicts of interest. The Commission informed EPPO of the Ombudsman’s recommendations in that regard. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1). 2 The guidance document on comparative assessment and substitution of Plant Protection Products in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (SANCO/11507/2013 rev. 12), available at: https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/be440357-ae1f-4e57-8ca73690f50c08cf_en?filename=pesticides_aas_guidance_comparative_assessment_substitution_rev_1107-2009.pdf 3 Decision on how the European Commission adopted a guidance document on comparative assessment in the context of the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides (case 177/2023/VB), https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/191432”
  GMOs
• 2024-12-19 “E-003065/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/564 1 on records to be kept by professional users harmonises the content and format of the records that professional users must keep in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 2 , but, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it is for Member States to define the details as regards implementation. At recent meetings 3,4 of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, the Commission discussed with Member States their progress in the implementation of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/564 5 . Member States confirmed they are taking the necessary measures to enable the implementation of the Regulation by the deadline foreseen, but some reported various difficulties that they have experienced and requested to postpone the date of implementation by two years. The discussions will continue to identify the best ways to address those difficulties. Article 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 provides the rules for keeping the records of use and access to the information they contain. It contains no obligation for the users to make the information included in the records automatically available to the competent authorities or to make that information public. Access by third parties to the information on pesticide use that is available to the competent authorities must be given in accordance with the applicable national or Union law. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/564/oj 2 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj 3 https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/b6ea365b-da78-4c76-80e8409b6e40082f_en?filename=sc_phyto_20241002_ppl_sum.pdf 4 https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/968dd1ff-e95f-420a-a6698200bd5a08db_en?filename=sc_phyto_20241204002_ppl_agenda.pdf 5 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/564/oj”
  GMOs
• “(10:12:21 – 10:14:21): Thank you, chair. Good morning, missus Randy Wagner, and congratulations for your work and the work of your team. We fully understand that it's difficult for you to be in Brazil today regarding the task you have to face. And I will have 3 different question complimentary from my colleagues more about the future and the debate we will have here in the parliament in the next month. The first is about MFF, and we're not discussing a lot about the budget for the agencies. So it would be useful to hear from you the vision you have of the evolution of your tasks. And if you consider to have the your resources corresponding to the missions objectives that the EU is giving to you and corresponding to, the difficulties, the crisis you have to tackle any day that are growing, growing, growing, growing. Second question, you referred, different time, to 1 Health issues and 1 Health approach. And we have this 1 Health task force across the agencies. And if I remember well, you had the opportunity to chat, to coordinate by yourself this task force. Perhaps you could do more you could say more to this committee about how useful it is, how useful how how it can be, strengthened, and what could be the future of this cooperation between agencies and, 1 Health. And my third question is about the future of eCDC because we know there is an evaluation pending. When you were advocating AML, you were advocating the interface between CDs and NCDs. And perhaps you can say more about the possibility for the future for ACDC to have more competencies in link with noncommunicable diseases.”
  EU competences on health (internal-competence axis, sharpened)
• “Um, I have in mind the link with the debate about sexual and reproductive rights on all the places where women can or not go, to have access to information, to be conscious of the risks and to have access to the good information that brings to early detection and then quality of links with medical medical system. Ecosystem. And last but not least, elements because Mr. Houser recalls us a good thing that we have not a problem with NGOs, but the problem with those who do attack NGOs. So we had a debate in plenary. I think we had a good solution to put an end at this debate inside the Parliament. But I know that NGOs in the health sector received a letter from the Commission last week or the week before with the new framework, how to work with the commission. And for example, when some say that you should not advocate towards MEPs, so you should not be there because you are advocating towards us not only sharing datas, but also sharing your vision of what should be public policies. So my very serious question is do this debate and this concrete implication of the framework of cooperation between the between commission risk to have bad impacts on your work or not. Or is it okay for you just administrative adaptation of how you set the partnership, the contracts and the reporting?”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “So. What we need to decide is how we can support European maritime stakeholders, ship owners in developing green shipment in Europe without suffering when it comes to their participation in international competition. We've talked about the port strategy, which is going to be published at the beginning of next year, but there is no concrete action plan. You talked about fuel and there is a clear action plan there with financing. But what I would like to know what the European Commission can do to, uh, draw up an action plan to help ports and ship owners to continue to invest in decarbonization, decarbonisation without, uh, Are losing their competitiveness on an international stage. They need a greater level of European assistant and that needs to be cleared up very quickly. Otherwise, in three months we will be told that we will have to lessen our ambition at a European level so that we can defend our competitiveness. The only way that we can truly do this is to, uh, support our industries and our economic actors.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “Yes. Thank you, chair. And very quickly, thanks for the commission to this nuanced presentation and factual one. It's very appreciated. I would like to do three remarks. First one. The notion of critical area of concern. It does not mean that there is no concern. It does mean that there is at least one use case, that it is safe, and that not all the use cases are problematic. So it's a concept we have problem with. It does not mean there is no concern. And when you clearly explain that, Efsa recognizes that there is data gaps, but also absence of test method on key element about risks for human health. It is in itself a huge problem when you authorize a new active substance candidate for substitution. And last element you didn't answer on the obligation for the commission to assess the co-formulate in the representative formula for a new pesticide. And it's an obligation you have. The Court of Justice recalled you very precisely and that you have to really implement. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Good morning, everybody, and thank you very much, chairman. As you highlighted, this objection has been submitted by MEPs from the EPP. The S and the Greens renew and the left. So it is a broad swathe of MEPs. And this is based on the draft decision from the Commission to approve d nppa as an active substance in biocidal products. Now this is mainly about preservatives in paper and also short term preservation of paints and coatings. Its use can be problematic because it's used to treat paper, which is then used for the packaging for foodstuffs. So then those food, that food comes into contact with consumers. Now there are no doubts. Nobody has any doubts. Db NPA is an endocrine disruptor and it's been proved to be so with harmful effects on human health, which have been proven but also for the environment. Now, as an endocrine disruptor, this substance should not be authorized under the regulation. But the Commission believes that derogation can be applied in this case because not approving the substance could have a disproportionate effect on society, especially because alternatives are not available or not yet, yet economically developed. So the Commission. Carried out a risk assessment, and on the risk side they have minimised the risk. They say that the safe there is safe exposure to bromide because this is a naturally existing substance and people come into contact with it in their diet, in their everyday diets.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you. Chairman. We fully agree with the rapporteur that we need to make progress in recognising study of specific women's health issues. We need to consider the the specific female biology. We talk about the difficulty in detecting cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases in women. Understanding hormonal behavior how it affects the women and how it affects their health, women's health throughout their life, obviously, from maternity to menopause. We need to understand how far biological differences affect women in developing the different diseases and the need for this to be, Part of larger clinical samples. Support for pregnancy and post-pregnancy issues. Our amendments will respect the informed consent procedure regarding any kind of treatment or intervention. We. This has not been guaranteed or it's been threatened or it's been threatened when we're talking about reproduction, which we also have seen an alarming number of. Incidents of women's health being affected by this. We also have to look at issues such as migraines, for example, which have a greater incidence in women. We will be defending a text which is working on a truly integrated women's health support maternity and dignity and providing Greater support for women's health.”
  Sexuality and reproduction
• “Thank you. Chairman. We fully agree with the rapporteur that we need to make progress in recognising study of specific women's health issues. We need to consider the the specific female biology. We talk about the difficulty in detecting cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases in women. Understanding hormonal behavior how it affects the women and how it affects their health, women's health throughout their life, obviously, from maternity to menopause. We need to understand how far biological differences affect women in developing the different diseases and the need for this to be, Part of larger clinical samples. Support for pregnancy and post-pregnancy issues. Our amendments will respect the informed consent procedure regarding any kind of treatment or intervention. We. This has not been guaranteed or it's been threatened or it's been threatened when we're talking about reproduction, which we also have seen an alarming number of. Incidents of women's health being affected by this. We also have to look at issues such as migraines, for example, which have a greater incidence in women. We will be defending a text which is working on a truly integrated women's health support maternity and dignity and providing Greater support for women's health.”
  Sexuality and reproduction
• “We also would like to highlight women's mental health from menopause back to adolescence. These are also issues which are not fully followed up. Dealing with women's health is a question of discrimination and access to health, because this reinforces discrimination that women are already subject to In particular in terms of medical desert. So access to health should be a fundamental right. To finish, I greatly appreciate what the rapporteur has done on research, and I want to add one additional point. As you know, we're all working on the concept of exposome, how exposure over life can increase chronic diseases. And there is one linked to the specific living conditions or exposure to pollution products. And we need to take this into account in research that needs to be developed. This gender aspect must be taken into account so that we can carry out research on the exposome of women, so that we can prevent specific diseases affecting women. I think this is the spirit in which we'll all be working together. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the high quality of her work and say how much we agree with many of her proposals. I think the amendments show that we'll have good progressive approach to this. I've been working closely with my colleague Cecilia Estrada, who's shadow in the FAM committee. The Parliament's work on health inequalities linked to gender is essential. I think that health and treatment were developed using a male reference which ignores the specific nature of women's bodies. And we have not taken into account the specific risks for women. This is something we're trying to work against. Now, now, if we're all fighting for the European Commission to give the best follow up possible to my voice, my chose when we're talking about abortion rights I think it's key that we have to work towards effective access for this as well. I think we need to go further than what the rapporteur has proposed in recognising diseases specific to women. Endometriosis is covered in the report, but we will add amendments to link to other diseases. In fact, PCOS or uterine fibrosis, which up till now are largely unknown and untreated undertreated.”
  Sexuality and reproduction
• “'ll speak French on behalf of the socialist groups. I'm asking for the fourth vice chair election to be postponed. There are rules in the European Parliament to rule 219 of the Rules of procedure says that there must be equality between men and women. And I think this is something that we try to attain in the Bureau of the committees. We've just elected one woman vice chair, and I congratulate them for that. But we now have three proposals which are men. We've just elected two men. If we were to respect the EP, the EP rules with regard to gender balance, then certainly in the Conference of Presidents last night, a derogation has been granted. But the Conference of Presidents cannot actually pronounce on what happens in a group as important as this. And I would therefore ask and call on the chair of the committee to postpone the vote for the fourth vice chair. **Veronika Vrecionová @Co-Chair: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? Does anybody else wish to take the floor, Mr. Dorfmann?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Commissioner. Colleagues, the sea ape is in danger. I would like to thank André Rodrigues for defending useful simplification of this. Keeping social conditionality and avoiding non-alignment Appointment of Cap with the environmental legislation. Thank you for taking on that battle and thank you for doing so. Despite the fact that the EPP is consumed with a deregulation fever, and Europeans may be wondering what is left of environmental conditionality, we now hear an EPP right wing commissioner expressed concern about EPP right wing amendments and hope that the council EPP right wing will actually, uh, help out and correct the amendments. We can help, but we're concerned. We're concerned about the future of the Cap. Looking at these proposals for the future MFF. One cannot help wondering whether the Cap is not endangered entirely. Its very existence is endangered. A 23% cut in the budget, putting farmers in competition with the rest of society. Absence of new instruments to assist the agro environmental transition of the Cap crisis management for dealing with climate crises coming under the same budget envelope as direct payments, so less and less for farmers. The squeeze has got to hit somewhere. That's not what we want and I hope we can reject the MFF in a few weeks time.”
  Agricultural funding
• “(11:07:36 – 11:09:49): you, chair. Thank you very much for the presentations. I think there's a great deal to be done in terms of research, in terms of monitoring coordination, and our capacity to respond quickly. And what you've shown is that we have identified these issues clearly, but I would follow on from what Mr. Sokol just said on a couple of points. Firstly, when we speak of resilience from a health perspective, it's not just in terms of preparedness for epidemics. A natural disaster with a major impact in a given area is also a major health issue that we need to prepare for. And in your presentations, I can't see vulnerabilities addressed really. That is to say our capacity, our ability to understand how an external event could have a different effect based on the area or the population in terms of the health response? I'm thinking here of vulnerable populations, but also less equipped areas where it's more difficult to communicate or where health care facilities are less good. Following on from what Mr. Sokol said, can we ask ourselves, or if we have to be ready to ensure continuity of care and to deal with patients at any point in time, do we need 10% or 20% more hospital capacity or a rapid deployment, field hospital capability or identification and care for vulnerable people so that they're not forgotten in crisis periods? And it's this aspect of managing impacts on the health of the population. And going back to what Ms. Reddy Wagner said in terms of the consequences on people who are already dealing with chronic issues. Is that something that is present in the public debate? And I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Thank you.”
  Public and private sectors role in healthcare services
• “Thank you chair. I will speak French. First of all, this uh, is uh, a very bad sign postponing this, this agreement by one year. Um. Is a collective failure. And I would like to applaud the commission's effort to ensure that Europe, as a leader in discussions and its will to continue work. But, uh, I am not optimistic when we see how the Americans are behaving in this negotiation, we see that we've come to the point of no return in terms of relations between international diplomats and, uh, Um, uh, public uh workers when these people are threatened with, uh, visa denials for entry into the US for themselves and their families, unless they agree with the US position, we can wonder, um. What this means for trade relations between the US and the European Union? Uh, we can see, uh, that, uh, the US is continuing to be a bully, to try to dominate us. And we must bear that in mind and act at a European level to drive negotiations forward. Yes, but also to take into account, uh, what action we might take in the months to come if we can't make any progress on this and for the rest of Donald Trump's mandate.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Celebrating the World Day against Cancer means thinking about patients, about the caregivers, about the healthcare workers who are part of this amazing human chain to fight this disease. But it also means identifying the causes of cancer. And I'm amazed and shocked to see that the people from the far right and people under Bardella are turning around and saying, we don't know what the causes are, but we do, because the way you live, the type of lifestyle we have, the pollutions we're exposed to, this increases the risk for your health and has caused this explosion of cancer cases with all sorts of interactions and cocktails, even with small doses that you're exposed to. So prevention is essential. A huge European prevention plan which could avoid 40% of cases. And we've got, of course, the fight against tobacco, which is responsible for a huge number of cases of cancer in the world. It's time to put new legislation on the table. We need to impose a new framework for the, uh, for for tobacco and the false alternatives to tobacco.”
  Smoking regulation
• “(15:17:28 – 15:20:35): Thank you very much, chair, and thank you, madam commissioner. I would like to echo the comments made by Serpa and also come back to the issue of women's health. So we have adopted a report that's been finalized in the firm committee, and we understand the importance of having this gender equality strategy to move forward. We continue to ask for a specific strategy for women's health at a European level. Now I know that health isn't specific to your competence, but I think within the equality strategy, the work we can do is quite limited, compared to all the different areas where we need to make progress. I don't know if you could comment on that. And then on My Voice, My Choice, the decision taken by the commission was, on the one hand, partly positive, but also disappointing in terms of what's being done. So perhaps you could clarify, are member states allowed to use the social fund? But often there is a problem with the member states themselves. So would the regions be able to use that funding directly without a national decision to help fund women's health care or abortion care? And then back onto health preparedness and crisis preparedness, we had a public hearing this morning in this committee that was very interesting, and I wanted to refer to three points. Now having done a lot to identify the risks, the scenarios, looking at having the right drugs in place, the right countermeasures. And I think this goes in the direction of what Serpa was saying, how we can reduce the impact for the most vulnerable populations. So can we do more? Can we better identify the vulnerabilities and support them better? Vulnerable areas as well that might experience worse environmental or health crises. One of the experts talked about making it compulsory to put in place cross border simulations and to do that on a regular basis beyond stress tests, but to see really how things could be organized and how we could draw lessons. And then a final point, having a multilevel governance together with local and regional authorities. So to have that fully recognized in European law as to the role of local and regional authorities when it comes to crisis management and preparedness? Thank you.”
  Abortion policy · Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much, chair. I first wanted to congratulate the rapporteur on her work and to wish her good luck with these thousands of amendments will be a lot of work. Two comments. First, on taxation. I heard what our PhD colleague said who they don't want to European tax, but to. Commissioner Varelli was the one who suggested a junk food tax to have a revenue to feed into the European budget on public health. And that seemed to be a good idea. I think that should be an open debate. And then second comment, which is most important, is on prevention. This is going to be essential to really make it clear what we need in terms of prevention. I think we can all agree that we need better detection, early detection and early diagnostics. We need to look at individual behavior patterns, whether that's diet or or smoking, etc.. But. We wouldn't want to only to forget about all of the other things and only look at individual issues. We can look at diet, for example, that perhaps comes more under envy than our committee. But we need to be clear about what we want to look at at a European Union when we're talking about diet, labeling, ultra processed food. But we do have to bear in mind the social determinants and the environmental determinants of this, because in the past we have rightly highlighted tobacco, etc., because we had information, but now we have studies that show the impacts of poverty, quality of life, etc.. Tomorrow we're going to have a presentation on the follow up of the report on exposome. But all of the things that we're exposed to and how they lead to chronic diseases, whether that's cancer, cardiovascular diseases, degenerative diseases, all of these are things that we have to bear in mind in our discussions. There is a collective social environmental dimension of cardiovascular diseases.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Madam president, Commissioner, we were at the UN Oceans Conference a few days ago and we saw the support from a lot of population, the population, including NGOs who are whose work I welcome. Today we saw miss von der Leyen taking the floor. It was a keynote speech and I'm very pleased for the contribution because it sets out and stakes out what we're going to do in the future. So I'd like to see action now and I'd pick up on those demands from NGOs, which we also support to have the Action Plan 2025, 2030 to implement your ambitions. Now, there's also urgency to change ocean governance and to achieve results where we failed, for example, to restore oceans to a healthy state. We have three demands for the Oceans Act that should be used. First of all, the Oceans Act should be applied as of 2026, not 27. Otherwise, we risk it not adopting it during the course of this term of office. Secondly, that the revision of the Framework Maritime Directive go hand in hand with this. Otherwise there's a lack of coherence and consistency, and that we make sure that all the legislation that comes under the Ocean Act can achieve the objectives that are set out in the Ocean Pact. This legislative construction site, if you like, is something that we're happy to work hand in hand with you on as of now. Thank you.”
  EU ocean policy
• “Thank you very much, colleagues. I'm quite surprised to be the first speaker. I would have thought the EPP would speak before me, but apparently they haven't requested to speak. So it's quite difficult to have a debate when some of the major groups are not taking part. I won't add anything to what Marie Toussaint had to say. I think she was very clear and precise. I'd say that it was implacable. So I'm very curious to hear the commission explain why it's doing this. I would just add to what Marie Toussaint said on two points, as she said at the request of the commission, Efsa is currently reexamining examining the file on Acetamiprid. So how is it possible, logically, in terms of public policy and science based decision making, to try and increase the MRLs at a moment when we are currently reviewing the whole file, because there are scientific warnings that are significant. And since 2013, Efsa has been asking for a mandate to reassess Acetamiprid. Marie Tussaud mentioned the precautionary principle that really is at the centre of this case. Whatever you may think about Acetamide, it is not justified to increase the threshold at the very moment when Efsa is working on it, at the Commission's request.”
  Maximum residue levels
• “Thank you. I'm going to take the floor in French. I would appreciate if the commissioner could go point by point through what you said on legislation, on the on pesticides. And I have a very different view of it. What bothers me here is that you said some things that are factually wrong. Of course, traceability rules for category one notes are not the same for GMOs. What you said is wrong there. And on the legislation on pesticides, you say that or authorisations without a time limit will be reserved for the least dangerous pesticides. That is not true. That is not what is contained in the text that you submitted. It's only the most dangerous pesticides that will be subject to regular review, and that is not the same thing at all. And you know that full well, because when it comes to medical devices, you have an approach based on the least dangerous devices. So if you want to have this approach for the least dangerous pesticides, then withdraw your, uh, your draft and submit a new one because what you said is factually wrong. And I have a precise question on the latest scientific information. Do you have a legal study which shows that which proves that what you wrote in the text is in line with the European treaties? And to end, I would like to ask you once again about the issue of subsidies for financing health care sector NGOs Uh, over 70 um MEPs from 12 member states from across the political spectrum, including the EPP coordinator from the Environment and Health Committee, requested this a few days ago. It was requested that calls for tender for subsidies for this sector, uh, would be open for 2026. So will you commit to re-establishing this for 2026 and 2027? That would be in line with the strategy of your colleagues at the commission, and it would show that you are listening to the Parliament and to the European people. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “'ll speak French on behalf of the socialist groups. I'm asking for the fourth vice chair election to be postponed. There are rules in the European Parliament to rule 219 of the Rules of procedure says that there must be equality between men and women. And I think this is something that we try to attain in the Bureau of the committees. We've just elected one woman vice chair, and I congratulate them for that. But we now have three proposals which are men. We've just elected two men. If we were to respect the EP, the EP rules with regard to gender balance, then certainly in the Conference of Presidents last night, a derogation has been granted. But the Conference of Presidents cannot actually pronounce on what happens in a group as important as this. And I would therefore ask and call on the chair of the committee to postpone the vote for the fourth vice chair. **Veronika Vrecionová @Co-Chair: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? Does anybody else wish to take the floor, Mr. Dorfmann?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you. Chair, thank you very much to Nicola Kessler for really putting things in context. The Patriots pretend that there is a link between vaccines and demographics. But this is not news. This is these are lies. Allies. I think we have to remember that it's the impact of pesticides, PFAS, chemical products, a number of environmental factors that are leading to a drop in fertility. So this is the position of the Patriots. Uh, I mean, what they're saying is counter science. Now, I'd like to ask Mr. Cooke about the task force, where you have a task force set up within the agency to also cooperate with other public health agencies. There is a project that's going to be concluded quite soon. So are you, uh, actually in favor of setting up this, uh, inter-agency cooperationework in the long term, making it permanent?”
  Vaccination
• “The Commission clearly thought that the warnings we've heard are serious. Second point, which you might perceive as provocative. Has there been a request from the American authorities for the European authorities to reassess this threshold? I'm not talking about European companies. I'm talking about the American authorities. What we're asking ourselves more and more often here is that is the deregulation agenda we're getting from the Commission through the omnibuses and these kind of decisions, are they hidden efforts to implement concealed agreements with the Trump administration that were signed in late 2024, and which have not been subject to any transparency, because it seems that we're getting more and more requests from the American side, followed up by initiatives from the commission to deregulate, whether we're talking about the digital sector, the environmental sector or any other. So it's a very precise question to you, which I may follow up with more formal legal questions. Has there been a formal request from the American authorities to revise these thresholds?”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Now we have to create value chains in Europe alongside SMEs and Mid-caps create jobs in Europe. I think we have to go further when it comes to sectoral plans, because all of these legislative initiatives, initiatives will require time to be put into place, but there is an emergency at hand. Now, I'm surprised to not hear about the agri food sector. I think that we have to have sectoral plans for the renewables industries because the net zero impact is not enough. We must look at the renewables in the marine sector as well. Now, with Stéphane Séjourné, you managed to build an action plan for marine transport and to include the ETS in the marine sector as well. So finally, on nuclear energy, the French press this morning, the now not 2035, 2038 we're looking at now and there will be differences in terms of €100. So this is more expensive than all of the renewables in Europe. And that won't be available until 2040. So I think we should all think long and hard about this.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Well, excellent. They're all from your political group? Yes. You might be an independent commissioner, but they're all from the same parties, the French government. So let's put together a plan to keep production and jobs in France and in Europe. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Commissioner. On the 28th of April, Spain underwent a blackout, one of the worst in history. We've had no explanation. We don't know why. But it seems that the huge influx of renewables are undermining the system and including nuclear. These could lead to problems with the system. Um, in Spain we have uranium, but the fact that we can't use that means that we are vulnerable and not competitive. We're in. You're in the hands of climate fanaticism. It's very easy, uh, to see who stands next to you. Look at Teresa Ribera. If you look at her, we understand your position. Um, we're avoiding. We're ignoring, uh, thousands of acres of arable land, um, for solar panels. And the taxpayer is paying for all of this. Um, you know, sometimes we say that, uh, people have good intentions, but it seems that you you have no desire to change anything. Last week in Strasbourg, the Patriots put forward an amendment that was voted on which wanted to ensure that, uh, European citizens who are supposed to be able to enjoy freedom of movement would no longer be able to use cars based on the combustion engine. Um, look at who voted in favor. Um, we already see all this. So my question is. What's going to happen if there's a blackout in 2036, when all of our cars are electric? Are the cars all going to grind to a halt and families are going to have to walk everywhere? What do you expect to happen?”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Everything that comes under the food packaging umbrella. Now we believe that the Commission is underestimating the risks linked to the products themselves and the presence of bromide, and that the Commission is not taking proportionate measures or adapted measures to restrict or limit the risks, even if they wanted to authorise the product itself. Now states, of course, can and will take more restrictive measures in their countries. But we know that, as in other areas, this can cause significant confusion on the European market. It can weaken the single market, and it can also lead to unfair competition between member states can also confuse consumers, who will find food products that have come into contact with paper treated with DB, NPA and other paper products that have not been treated with it. So what we want to do is send out a clear message to the commission that we need to go much further in the restricting the use of endocrine disruptors or banning endocrine disruptors, and. We should not be authorising the use of these products if they affect human health. Health is a key issue for most of the people in this Parliament, and we need to send out a clear signal to the Commission, and I hope that we do so with this proposed objection. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioner. Thank you for being here. I don't think we should no longer have the fight against biodiversity loss as a priority. I think health and well-being are at the heart of European competitiveness. After all, we'd even go further on reach. And for us to say very clearly that the Socialist group has not agreed to not reopening reach until there's been an open discussion on a package around improving the implementation of a whole series of measures to promote the treatment of chemical products to the benefit of health and Uh, environment. Uh, so yes, we can go through comitology, but not just to simplify, but also to improve the implementation. And we absolutely need to reinforce the means of the European Chemicals Agency in order to speed up the procedure for dealing with dossiers. And for that, we need a firm commitment from the commission and that the agency can open new dossiers, for example, on polymers, as it's done on PFAs. And the last point on reach, the commission must absolutely make the commitment to continue working on a review to reach, and that it be possible to open at at the beginning of the next mandate in a different geopolitical and political context. Then on the PFAs, I'm not entirely sure we agree. I hope we do. When you say that the priority is to eliminate PFAs in products coming into contact with consumers, well, PFAs are everywhere. First of all, they're in water, but also in the soils. So the issue of contact between PFAs and consumers is not linked to the product, but rather to the entire environment that they live in.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you. Chairman. We fully agree with the rapporteur that we need to make progress in recognising study of specific women's health issues. We need to consider the the specific female biology. We talk about the difficulty in detecting cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases in women. Understanding hormonal behavior how it affects the women and how it affects their health, women's health throughout their life, obviously, from maternity to menopause. We need to understand how far biological differences affect women in developing the different diseases and the need for this to be, Part of larger clinical samples. Support for pregnancy and post-pregnancy issues. Our amendments will respect the informed consent procedure regarding any kind of treatment or intervention. We. This has not been guaranteed or it's been threatened or it's been threatened when we're talking about reproduction, which we also have seen an alarming number of. Incidents of women's health being affected by this. We also have to look at issues such as migraines, for example, which have a greater incidence in women. We will be defending a text which is working on a truly integrated women's health support maternity and dignity and providing Greater support for women's health.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Bonjour. Commissioner. Good morning. I would like to go back to the question about the NGOs and subsidies. In your words, you yourself recognize that 9 million represents in your mind 1.5% of the annual budgets were not far from 1%. And these NGOs already contribute to preventive action, for example, through the cardiovascular plan. So by cutting subsidies in their existing format, you're destabilizing them, requiring them to cut their staff, and then you're expecting them to respond to calls to tender to do things that they're already doing now, perhaps somewhat differently, but at the same type of action. So take responsibility for what you're doing. You are trying to destabilize NGOs and prevent them to be key players in public health policy. We need answers. And both for political groups and socialists, the way of addressing and resolving this problem is going to be key to the political relations with you. Thank you.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Mr. president, on behalf of the socialists, I wanted to welcome your maritime commitment of what you're doing for your the Europeans of the sea. And then when it comes to health and the mental health of young people and work and employment, you want to speed up progress on the chemicals directive and tobacco, but listening to the whole of the debate, um, I'm wondering what European citizens are thinking since the beginning of the year, because we've seen that the situation in Gaza is going to continue. The Ukrainians are huddling in the freezing cold in Kyiv. They can see Trump kidnapping, uh, Maduro from Venezuela out of Venezuela and threatening the sovereignty of Europe. So that what they want is Europe to show itself to be strong, it show its sovereignty, show that they can respect human rights. Well, yes, at the level of the European Union, we do have to have a strong response. We have to have an independent position as the European Union's, and we need to use the anti coercion instrument. And I think that would really show that Europe is strong and has sovereignty. Uh, president of a small country is sometimes best placed to listen to some of the larger voices in the interest of Europe.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “And finally, my last point to echo Peter Laser to a degree, but also to deviate from what he said a bit. We've heard one point from these agency observers, the six point between now and 2030 that depend on our ability to implement legislation. I would like the agency to give more clarity on what legislation needs to be implemented, and what investment is needed for this legislation to be effective, we can see that the reduction in prices can have an important consequence. But I'd like to remind Peter that there is a reason for members of our group to be reticent as regards ETS two, and that is because there are no social, um, tools to help households deal with the cost of ETS two, and we cannot move forward with the Green Deal without an industrial, um, pillar to protect our industry and a social pillar to protect Europeans from the consequences of higher prices in their daily lives. And the tools that we have right now in those two fields, particularly in the social field, are insufficient. We need to balance this if we want Europeans to be able to move forward to the goal that we have for 2030. And so the legislation and its implementation is vital. If we do not implement it correctly, we will not hit our 2030 targets.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. Chair. I'll speak French. First of all, I'd like to thank the commission's teams, the ECA team, the shadows here in the Envy Committee and the rapporteur from the Budget Committee for the initial discussions that we've already had, and they are very promising discussions. This text is an extremely important one, and it will allow us to improve the functioning of the ECA. And will help us attain our objectives of protecting health, the environment, while at the same time doing the best for industry and for SMEs in Europe. It was essential to draft a legislative budget for the ECA to secure its financing, with the reserve that is mentioned in the text. The means of work of the OECD is an important one, because many people have said that it works too slowly to evaluate risks and respond to questions asked by the commission. It's been too slow, and to speed up it needs to have an appropriate budget and human resources. And it also needs to be able to count on experts in the various committees who take the on the work of rapporteur and analyse the various files from their points of view. So we're going to have to ensure that member States appoint more experts, experts in the service of the OECD and to help the Member States. This will help the Member States in their work within the committees of the OECD. Ach. As I said in the introduction, the objective of the ACH is, first of all, to come up with answers to the protection of health and the environment.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Dear Commissioner, I won't surprise you because I will be once again asking you about the matter of support for NGOs in health and. And read out the text that was adopted in the context of the discharge of the EU budget by 389 against 255 votes by the European Parliament last week. The Parliament deplores the Commission's decision to not subsidize health care expenditures, which only represents 21% of the budget in 2024, and emphasizes the importance of predictable and stable support mechanisms for actors and organizations in civil society. In the area of health care also invites the commission to make sure that operational subsidies are paid out in the context of EU and IMF programs. So I would ask you not to hide behind the vote on the text on husbandry, because clearly the paragraph on NGOs didn't cover health care NGOs and rather ask you whether the commission does plan to follow the request by the European Parliament or not.”
  Public and private sectors role in healthcare services
• “Thank you very much. My question is for Monsieur Earl. But we could also have answers from his colleague. My first question is linked to the explosion of chronic diseases and the growing. The growing. Way in which people are exposed to these sorts of diseases. And so that brings me to a question on your approach on the accumulated effects and the cocktail effects of different substances and their impact on human health. You've heard from the European Parliament that there's literature being published on these cocktail effects in pesticides, but are you able to go any further than that and work with other agencies on this question? Now, my second question is linked to cooperation between the agencies. We can see within the Oslo package, there's an attempt to regulate the differences that there may be between the agencies. But do you think that we could go further than that with a framework on some kind of agreement or a common way of working between the agencies? And if so, how do you, as the director of Efsa, think that you would be prepared to work together with the other agencies? And then my last point is on the relationship with the other European institutions and the coalition. Of course, there's a budgetary aspects. That was already mentioned by my colleague Holmgren. But do you think that there are ways of fulfilling your mission and the new missions that you will be given, and your vision of the evolution of these increasing missions over time? Do you think that it's the time has come to reopen a debate on the funding given to the agencies at the European level? Oh, and one last question is on the precautionary principle and the relationship between those who are in charge of risk analysis, which is what you are, and the political powers. Do you think that these this is well established as a separation of competences, or do you think that there is some kind of fuzzy area between the two of them? And do you think that you're in the right position to take decisions? Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Mr. president commissioner colleagues we need to do more in order to protect the health and the environment of Europe against the impact of chemicals where we live and the way we live. Pollution and hazardous products that we are exposed to do have an impact on us, on our health and explain a large part of the huge growth in non-communicable diseases. Degenerative diseases. Cancer. Chronic pain diseases. So we do need this common database. It will be a basis for better evaluation, and I'd like to thank the rapporteur for having led our work and also protected Parliament's position and conveyed it to Council. We've made improvements on key items I believe are better taking account of emerging risks. Risks that we are, as of yet unaware of a better taking into account the possibility for citizens, NGOs or independent scientific experts to make a contribution to this database, to make sure that it's available throughout Europe, and also the possibility for the OECD to commission reports from independent scientists to supplement files, which are being primarily led by industrial enterprises. So, yes, we need to go further in order to better assess them. That's the goal of Reach, strengthen our agencies and particularly ECA. I will be the rapporteur for ECA legislation and I will continue the work.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you. Speak French. Good afternoon. Chairman. First of all, I'm going to react to all these outrageous things I'm hearing here because the people who are saying that, uh, the wind, uh, winds are the cause of the phase, that it's really the metabolites of pesticides that cause this. And every time in this, uh, area, we want to vote against the use of pesticides. You are complicit with this, and you are co-responsible for the for public health. And you are threatening public health in Europe by reporting fake news. So if the European Environment Agency has information to give us, to give us on the sources of it, then we would like to know. But you are putting submitting your report and talking about a lack of investment at the European level. Now you are considering it. 743 billion for all the objectives tying in with the Green Deal. But I don't think you've established the cost of non action or inaction. I've seen a lot in the report and the few data I've got with this air pollution, natural catastrophes, not reaching, uh, the objectives for quality of oceans, adapting to climate change. It's a lot more than 750 billion with the cost of. Is it possible to establish this, this figure in order to feed into the public debate? And then you're talking about a lot of challenges due to impact on health. But at the moment, you're doing this by submitting the impact in the different domains, which could develop now with your data, maybe cooperating with the other European agencies. Could you give us a data with the whole all the data The cocktail, made up of all the types of pollutants and the effects, uh, to um, on public health, on human health. And because we're seeing a lot of these chronic diseases development. Now, I know that you don't have all the data, but how could you cross-reference environmental data with public health so that we can see the damage, the European level, and we can see how we can develop data and and look at what we can have on these levels of exposure. Thank you.”
  Air quality policy
• “Thank you. Chair. Commissioner. I think that from my colleagues in the Socialist group, you may have heard a certain amount of exasperation. Um, we're basically all picking up on it. I'm going to go back to chemical products. Uh, action plan. Okay. Why not? But now we hear talk about an omnibus. That was supposed to be here before winter. Now we're hearing about a reality check workshop on the regulation. Also work on on cosmetics legislation, general movement towards reviewing legislation that sometimes has only been adopted a few months ago, which is going to take years before all this is finally implemented. Is it all going to be managed through urgency procedures, sidelining Parliament? Why is there no transparent dialogue with your co-legislator? If legislation was bad, then tell us what you think was wrong with it and we'll talk about it openly. We really are having difficulty with this on the reach and chemicals legislation. This seems to be contradictions. Sometimes it's industry that's the problem. Sometimes, um, consumers, um, are Are concerned. Let's talk about this transparently. Just one example. At lunchtime, we had a financial, uh, a research program financed by Horizon Europe called on, uh, the impact of Chemical Products on child Health. And we saw that there were already accumulations of PFAS, which were one of the key markers for deterioration of child health, peaking around eight years. So that's been already established today. Are you going to look at the cocktail effect of accumulation of different chemical products to do that? Yes. We'll have to review the concentration levels in order to have a global approach to measure. Would that not be a more progressive approach to the issue of chemical products? And then finally, to finish, I'd just like to finish about what Madame Pellerin Carlin said about ArcelorMittal. You said you will stand alongside national and regional authorities.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, the resolution that I'd like to see is the preventive resolution, because, uh, treatment is important and needs to be done better, but it's not a goal in itself. I mean, the point is to get old in good health. That's the best way to do things, and it's the best investment. And I think, uh, if we don't do that, the problem is that we have to spend loads of money uselessly and millions of people die. So yes, we need major programmes of public health, like the cancer programme announced by the commission. And, uh, we do need a major programme for mental health and also women's health. But first and foremost, we need to prevent diseases by acting on those things that cause poor health. So fighting, uh, poor housing, poverty, energy poverty, food poverty, etc.. Fighting bad quality food and smoking. And these are things that are the result of decades of manipulation and lobbying by large, major economic interests. We need to urgently revise the tobacco directive and also fight the false alternatives to cigarettes, which are a major health danger as well. We also need legislation on food to combat dangerous products and practices. We need to better inform consumers and also ban, yes, ban advertising for bad quality food, fast food particularly. We also need to deal with the accumulated effects of our environment on our bodies. There's this massive explosion in these kinds of diseases, degenerative diseases, cancers, etc. so pollution, p-fas chemicals, etc. these are terrible things that damage our health massively. So this these are the things that what we need, that we need to act on. We need to make dramatic political choices. It's all about prevention, prevention, prevention.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “So the commission believes that exposure to dbps and PA is natural and that there is no additional risk. But the problem that we face now is that this claim has been challenged by people on all fronts. Once. The know threshold has been able to be established because there's so much uncertainty. There was a 2019 report at the BP, and in a more recent opinion, Efsa concluded that it was necessary to have other studies in order to be able to have a full assessment of all of the risks linked to bromides. So there is a significant certainty from the from Efsa and from the BPC. Now, as you're all aware, colleagues, the effects of endocrine disruptors can be very significant even in low doses. So the notion of a safe threshold of exposure is a notion which is up for debate. Now there are, of course, MEPs that are concerned, but also some states that have Highlighted their reservations in councils such as Sweden and Germany, and the commission has not proposed any restrictions. The Commission could propose to authorise the product with a low duration of exposure, while other economic alternatives are found, or could restrict usage or exclude.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “(11:45:37 – 11:47:27): Good morning. Thank you very much, both of you for your presentations. I'd like to come back to the question that I asked just now on the vulnerabilities. Mister Siciliano, you talked about the need to reduce the impact of crises and the risk of collapse of health systems. My question is, are we investing in the knowledge of vulnerabilities of health systems and populations and in anticipation of the impact of crises on populations and regions at the same level as we are in the construction of risk response scenarios in health systems? We are in the process of working on legislation on civil protection. And this legislation, if you looked into it, there is no coordination between civil protection legislation and transnational transborder health care legislation. When you talk about simulation on a regular and obligatory basis or multilevel governance based on a strong regional basis, are these correctly taken into account by the European legislation at the moment? And the law on cross-border health care was supposed to be revised by the end of 2025. It's not the case. We don't have any visibility at the moment. Would it be useful to revise the legislation on cross-border health care so that we move towards this more robust governance so that we're better prepared for crises?”
  EU competences on health (internal-competence axis, sharpened)
• “Thank you. Chairman. Good morning everyone. Colleagues. So what is PD fluid? Well, it's a real horrible substance. It's a suspected carcinogenic. Toxic for reproduction, toxic for environment and extreme. Extremely persistent in the environment. Its half life is more than 805 850 days. And the products it's used on has a half life of less than 90 days. So why would we authorize a new active principle, which is already a candidate for substitution, when we have so many products on the market? The Commission will tell us that all of the criteria which would justify a ban have not been met. The Commission will tell us that Efsa has not given a red a red light to the product. That's true. However, another decision is possible. Do we have to put on the market again? Persistent a product that persists in the environment. Whereas today we're seeing the damage from the PFAs. Are we going to make the same mistake with regard to this product? Shouldn't we take into account the precautionary principle the variety and range of pesticides it belongs to? Sdhi blocks an enzyme present in humans, and Efsa considers this to be a pertinent risk for humans. And finally, the assessment of this active principle is incomplete, since there are gaps in the information which are fairly significant on Co-formulations it's involved with. Commission refers the responsibility back to the states, whereas the EU Court of Justice has recently. Condemned the commission and reminded them that it's up to the Commission and the Commission alone to ensure the safety of the representative formula of pesticides. For all of those reasons, colleagues, I would call on you to vote on this objection. It would be a strong political signal sent to the Commission. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you, Mr. Castillo. You've heard what I said. We've heard your Austrian colleague from the same group as you. Who's worried about the explosion in the number of cancers? He doesn't recognize the causes. Do you recognize that there are environmental causes for cancer? Uh, do you recognize that we need to go much further in terms of the environmental and green policies? Are you ready to fight the tobacco lobby? You. Well and your entire group so that the legislation on, um, vapes and smoking arrive soon in this hemicycle?”
  Smoking regulation
• “Commissioner. Commissioner. Vice president, you're here because you and the college have committed to respecting the Green Deal. The commission is the guardian of the treaty's most notable article 164, Protection of Human Health, which is part of the definition of the implementation of all the EU policies. Omnibus and omnibus on Chemicals. According to what we know, what was being published is not in line with this. Socialists and Democrats in this Parliament condemn vehemently this proposal, which is orchestrating a huge backsliding and is a threat to human and environmental health. It's the opposite of simplification. Unless that means going back to using dangerous products and exonerating move away from commitments, we are increasing exposures to dangerous products and packaging. Labeling is becoming more difficult. You wanted to change labelling when a classification is changed, when carcinogenic, mutagenic and reaper toxic products are used in cosmetics. There is no requirement to propose an alternative. If you're in favour of marketing for over 36 months of cosmetics containing banned ingredients, the commission is. Working for the industry, as opposed to doing away with dangerous products or working towards keeping dangerous products. You should support the industry and have sustainable products that are good for everyone's health.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, I welcome this plan. It's a good addition to the cancer plan so that we're dealing with the major causes of mortality in Europe. Mr. Sokol has already raised my first point. Does the budget follow through? Does it meet the level of ambition that we've heard? We've talked about the MFF be useful for the Commission to give us some idea of the level of budgetary ambition to. You can't have an ambitious cardiovascular plan if you don't tackle Prevention. Yes. Tobacco and obesity. But we also need to tackle the environment. Cardiologists referred to the environment as one of the major issues which will have to be faced. Just last week at its conference. And there's also a need for a legislative programme to deal with smoking and regulation of alternative smoking products that are causing such harm to young people. You refer to legislation in 2026. If that is a Commission decision, I'm absolutely delighted. We really want that legislation and let's really hope it does genuinely come in 2026 and is not held up once again.”
  Smoking regulation
• “Thank you very much. I'll be speaking French. I have three points to make. First of all, many of my colleagues from the EPP and the socialists have said that the issue of the plan's funding in the upcoming MFF will be key, and that is obvious. So I hope that all together we'll be able to fight for an EU for our health program with €10 billion funding. That will be high enough to fund the beating cancer plan. This is something crucial that we have to fight for here in this committee. And then the rapporteur is right. The prevention shortcomings are extremely serious from a moral and policy point of view. And we really have to focus on this. And we have tools for this. We've heard about the Exposome and how exposure to different factors can trigger chronic diseases, such as cancer. And then in the exposome, you have individual behavior, you have the life environment and, uh, working in life conditions, inequalities, um, lack of an equal access to health care. And all of this is part of a whole. And I think that we're going to have to face this reality. Yes, we're going to talk about alcohol, tobacco again. Yes, we're going to talk about pollution and toxic substances. And yes, we're going to talk about equal access to health care. But then we'll have to see how people vote. We're going to have to see which way people swing. And I'd like to talk to the French MEPs. When you have a colleague from your group who speak in the French parliament and who say that cancer increases, cancer case increases, and people say that it's because of Covid vaccinations, do you contradict them? What do you say as patriots? Do you say anything to your colleagues? Do you think that Covid is linked to this increase in cancer? I want an answer from you because you just hide between vague words. But when the time comes to fight against pollution, pesticides and toxic substances, you are never there, and then you back up. Tests that are not funded are underpinned by science. And if you don't say anything against us, you are criminals.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “I'd like to thank Mr. Tosas for the excellent job which he's led. Collective task. We've taken two important steps. Initial step. Setting up a full, comprehensive database setting out risks of chemical products. And the second important step, which is opening up this database not just to businesses, but also national authorities, researchers and civil society. That will be very important when it comes to risk evaluation as well as protection of health. However, these are just two initial preliminary steps. A great deal remains to be done. One of the absolute priorities, Madam Commissioner, must be to step up the powers of ECA, which must, of course, be funded by private business, but with a budget, his own budget from the European Commission, so that the agency can work effectively. We then need additional steps to ensure we have even more comprehensive data, and then we have to be able to cross check data on public health and chemicals, so as to better understand the explosion in disease and face up to the challenges we have in public health.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Qu'on est. La recherche est un travail. I'm very happy that we're finally having a debate on this. It's you know, we've got people financing a research, and it's the cities and regions as well as the EU. The 3% of GDP for research reaffirms our objective. But how come we put all these constraints on public debt, but not on the support to research? I would like some kind of a binding commitment so that we can really see proper mobilization of funds rather than just looking at financing defense, which of course is important. I would also like it to be made clear that we're helping out the role of local bodies, local cities and councils and regions. Because Horizon Europe you know, the equivalent support from the regions is almost as big as the entirety of Horizon Europe. So it's very important that we have this European research area that really has room for all these great minds.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Commissioner. I'll speak French in, uh, uh, Europe. And this is part of Santo. We have a cancer plan, and we're going to have diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Um, plan in the future. Perhaps others as well. But I want to know, how do you balance European investment, um, in plans to tackle chronic illnesses and then prevention as well, which is, uh, an area that's common to all of these plans. You referred to tobacco that falls under DG Santo. Witness spoke about an agenda on a food policy. It's not just a question of labelling. It's also refers to the battle against junk food and labelling on nutritional qualities of food. Here we really don't have a European legislative agenda. Uh, that was, um, planned at one point and then abandoned Then, um, exposure to pesticides also affects health on pesticides. We need a global approach from the commission. It's not entirely your competency. It's very good to have a legislative vehicle that will allow us to put alternatives to chemical products on the market. We also are working on the, um. Integrated, uh, site management plan. Uh, when it comes to pesticides, we have it's good to have this management, but is there going to be a moratorium on new permits? And then how are you coordinating with the commissioner responsible on research to develop alternatives, um, or research into risks? And then one final question. You spoke about additional resources for Efsa. Could you tell us a bit more about exactly what you're thinking about? Are you placing your hopes here on the MFF, or are you talking about specific new resources that will be directed towards Efsa? Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Mr. Cardoso. Madam president, Commissioner, European Parliament is proposing to the Commission today. That would be highly ambitious in ensuring the access of everyone to water, respecting the environment and health. Congratulations and thank you to Mr. Bajada for this excellent result. Two points. Oceans. Quality of drinking water. All of us should support the approach of water sources running into the sea. We need high quality water. So to reduce pollution of water on the continent, this is crucial. This is vital to protect Biodiversity but also fisheries activities. Farming industry. I do welcome the fact that water quality is as important as water availability. It's urgent that we act as a French person from south of Alsatian, from Alsace. I would say that unfortunately, we have experienced people being poisoned through water because of the PFA rates. So it's urgent that we act to drastically reduce pesticides and PFAS in water. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Boris Pabon.”
  Water pollution
• “Thank you chairman. I'll speak French. What are we talking about? Taxonomy. We're not talking about the light, right? Of right or life or death for companies. It's companies that are align. Aligned with the requirements of the Commission. The chemicals we're talking about. Are dangerous products. You're proposing to reduce them by two thirds or more. But today, in the current text. Companies which have confronted with these problems. Have the possibility to to derogate if they have a risk management. And if they can show that there are no alternatives. The system is very flexible. So why are we having this huge reduction. In dangerous substances taken into account. Finally, if we do that. You're pre-empting the debate that we have to have on the package. On chemical products at the end of the year or in 2026? 26. Either you're not in conformity with the reach regulation or you're describing now what will be the reach regulation later on? I don't understand what basis what factual basis you're basing yourselves when it comes to reducing the products taken into account.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “'ll speak French on behalf of the socialist groups. I'm asking for the fourth vice chair election to be postponed. There are rules in the European Parliament to rule 219 of the Rules of procedure says that there must be equality between men and women. And I think this is something that we try to attain in the Bureau of the committees. We've just elected one woman vice chair, and I congratulate them for that. But we now have three proposals which are men. We've just elected two men. If we were to respect the EP, the EP rules with regard to gender balance, then certainly in the Conference of Presidents last night, a derogation has been granted. But the Conference of Presidents cannot actually pronounce on what happens in a group as important as this. And I would therefore ask and call on the chair of the committee to postpone the vote for the fourth vice chair. **Veronika Vrecionová @Co-Chair: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? Does anybody else wish to take the floor, Mr. Dorfmann?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the high quality of her work and say how much we agree with many of her proposals. I think the amendments show that we'll have good progressive approach to this. I've been working closely with my colleague Cecilia Estrada, who's shadow in the FAM committee. The Parliament's work on health inequalities linked to gender is essential. I think that health and treatment were developed using a male reference which ignores the specific nature of women's bodies. And we have not taken into account the specific risks for women. This is something we're trying to work against. Now, now, if we're all fighting for the European Commission to give the best follow up possible to my voice, my chose when we're talking about abortion rights I think it's key that we have to work towards effective access for this as well. I think we need to go further than what the rapporteur has proposed in recognising diseases specific to women. Endometriosis is covered in the report, but we will add amendments to link to other diseases. In fact, PCOS or uterine fibrosis, which up till now are largely unknown and untreated undertreated.”
  Sexuality and reproduction
• “So it has to be verified and strengthened. And I also share the idea to give a possibility to member States and the Parliament to give or propose. We will have to think about the process mandates to Echa as we are able to to do for Efsa. And last word. We do not know if we will have or not a full revision of rich legislation. Nobody knows. So at this stage, ECA is the most important file. We have to address some key issues about the management of risks in link with, uh, chemicals. And so we have to do our maximum to reinforce, to improve the means, the capacity to act, uh, the legitimacy of ECA, to improve the global functioning of this sector and the assessment of chemical risks. So let's finalize your amendments. We began to discuss in committee about budget amendments. And then I think we will be able to have a smooth and quick process in shadow meetings, and then to be able to discuss with Member States and Council as quickly as possible. Thank you for your attention and thanks for your contribution.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “So first, thank you, chair. Thanks to the colleagues for their contribution and the Commission for his input. I will have a meeting with the EPP shadow tomorrow morning. So we will be able to discuss about the proposal amendments. And I'm sure we will be able to find common ground. And we need a strong common position of Parliament, because we will have to discuss with the Council about the elephant in the room. That is the capacity for member States to really appoint members in the committee to help to do his job. I had the opportunity with my colleague Alfredsson, who had to leave to go in a car in November. So thanks very much for how we were welcome and the work we did together. And we feel that, yes, there is some means, some human resources, some financial resources in ECA, but there is also a lot of supplementary work to do. And for example, the mandate given on PFAS brings to mobilise a lot of resources in ICA. So I think we really need to confront, to stabilise, to reinforce the resources of ECA. And that's also why I advocate for a kind of report adopted by the management board each year to verify the adequation between the resources and the tasks, to be able to highlight for every kind of factor. How is it necessary or not to readjust the resources of ECA? Then I share a lot of remarks or proposals from my colleagues about non-animal methods, for example, about this interrogation of the role of the commission, because it's not an executive agency of the Commission, it's an independent agency to assess risks and to propose some very important science based elements to the Commission for the decision making process.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much, chair. Good morning, ministers. Thank you for those very explanatory statements. Very enlightening. I've got some specific questions maybe you can answer. Are you able to tell us what the Danish government's method is going to be? To try to find an agreement with the Parliament on the. That's a very important file. And then I'll come back to the session question here. And that is green claims. I don't think you answered that one. Should we understand from your statement that there is an agreement between the Commission and the Council to restart the review of the Green Claims Directive that the EPP was trying to bury? That's one that's very important for us. And then a key question about reach. And I think that if Christel Schaldemose had been able to stay, um, we would have heard a comment on that. And on chemicals, a political choice is going to have to be made here. Can we really reconcile the economy's performance and protection of health and the environment? That's something we all want, but it's not going to be easy. Exposure to chemicals is one of the reasons behind the explosion in serious diseases and cancers in Europe, and PFAS and chemicals are at the heart of water pollution. So it would be excellent if you could make progress on the Reach file under your presidency. But before that file, we have the chemicals omnibus file. And the chemicals omnibus file is a text that is looking at weakening all regulation or lots of regulation on the conditions for producing and putting chemicals onto the market, as well as information to consumers and the labelling use. So this for us is a test, and we'd be keen to hear what your approach to the chemicals omnibus is, because that's going to set the tone for the review of the Reach file.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “So just in case, we're going to vote once again as to the potential adjournment of the vote. There was a vote. There was a result. There is no reason to do a new vote. If we begin in this mandate to do new votes when it is not the good result for anybody, perhaps we could vote 2 or 3 times on each amendment. There was a vote. Nobody contested the results. This vote is acquired.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “We also would like to highlight women's mental health from menopause back to adolescence. These are also issues which are not fully followed up. Dealing with women's health is a question of discrimination and access to health, because this reinforces discrimination that women are already subject to In particular in terms of medical desert. So access to health should be a fundamental right. To finish, I greatly appreciate what the rapporteur has done on research, and I want to add one additional point. As you know, we're all working on the concept of exposome, how exposure over life can increase chronic diseases. And there is one linked to the specific living conditions or exposure to pollution products. And we need to take this into account in research that needs to be developed. This gender aspect must be taken into account so that we can carry out research on the exposome of women, so that we can prevent specific diseases affecting women. I think this is the spirit in which we'll all be working together. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Mr. chairman, Commissioner colleagues. New European taxes. No thank you. The commission calls it new own resources because they can't call a spade a spade. It sounds technical, but honestly it means new European taxes invented in Brussels, collected in Brussels and spent in Brussels. Ets2. It's not about saving the planet. It's about dragging more money out of people's pockets. It will affect drivers, home owners and small companies. Energies and housing will be more expensive and Brussels will be happy. We have solved everything and now they want even more company taxes, carbon taxes, all called own resources. But taxes without the approval of national states are unacceptable, no matter what we call them. And I'm saying this clearly no more European new taxes, no ETS two no fiscal union. We are firmly behind sovereignty. Thank you.”
  Own EU resources
• “We also would like to highlight women's mental health from menopause back to adolescence. These are also issues which are not fully followed up. Dealing with women's health is a question of discrimination and access to health, because this reinforces discrimination that women are already subject to In particular in terms of medical desert. So access to health should be a fundamental right. To finish, I greatly appreciate what the rapporteur has done on research, and I want to add one additional point. As you know, we're all working on the concept of exposome, how exposure over life can increase chronic diseases. And there is one linked to the specific living conditions or exposure to pollution products. And we need to take this into account in research that needs to be developed. This gender aspect must be taken into account so that we can carry out research on the exposome of women, so that we can prevent specific diseases affecting women. I think this is the spirit in which we'll all be working together. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “(11:37:15 – 11:44:59): Thank you very much, chairman, distinguished members. The COVID-19 crisis taught us something very important. No health system can be resilient itself. Resilience is based on a common capacity to detect signals and deploy responses effectively. So resilience isn't the sum of a system of national systems, and we need multinational governance, I don't know, multilevel governance, coordination and governance. That's what I'll be talking about. At the Belgian federal level, this governance is at different levels. Management of health risks might appear to be complex, but it's very coherent. We have a risk assessment group, which is an opinion-forming group, which is to examine risks for public risks and to make recommendations. And then there's a strategic level in the risk management group, which is the chief medical officer. It is based on scientific bodies, in particular the RAG that I just mentioned, also the higher advisory groups. This is about protecting public health, and we have the political authority that is the interministerial group. We have various ministers in charge of health in Belgium. And this group comes in times of crisis and implements agreements. The federal entities, I represent the Wallonian region in this organization. We are within the RAG and the RMG, the risk management group. The risk representatives are focal points and they are mobilized in the case of an urgent emergency. We provide rapid information. We coordinate decisions, and we'd also have an operational level close to citizens. We have a structured system at Belgium and also regional level, which is complementary coordinated with a communal and federal level, which provides a proportional and rapid response adapted to the realities on the ground. In major crises, where we often have the wrong communication, the wrong action at the wrong time, the Wallonia region doesn't operate in isolation, and that's based on legislation. The sort of resources can be allocated. When it comes to crisis management, it is the rapid action actors at the regional level. In Wallonia, we have decided to reinforce our ability to act, which has actions at different levels, and we coordinate various actors at various levels. It might seem complicated, but there's a crisis cell where there is a multidisciplinary action with the federal and European levels. When it comes, in the case of floods, for example, we've been able to mobilize all the regional levels in a coordinated way. I'm talking about surveillance of water courses, distribution of drinking water, communication with local authorities, and management of epidemic risks. Planning at the regional levels is based on coordination and crisis communication at the federal and European level. The issue isn't to add an additional level. It is to be an interface between the various levels. To prepare the health system, there are four priority areas. We have to reinforce the preparation and the management of crises so that we don't have a fragmentation of health systems, which is particularly fragmented in Belgium. To deal with that, we need to have integrated tests and plans socially and in health terms. And we'd have strong support and strategies of prevention, which are different at various levels. We also need surveillance and health data. That means having an epidemiological system in real time with communication of data directly towards the authorities, publication of data on a regular basis for health care professionals, and communication, which is in a structural way in critical situations. Surveillance and health data means we need to have interoperability of data between regions at different levels. That's essential for vaccination data, but also when it comes to tracing. This data has to be used for early detection and rapid decision making. We need to use all the various data sources based on an evidence base when it comes to vaccination in particular and to have more data systems so that we can better understand the behaviors and have a better construction of strategy. The other improvement is to develop our knowledge and health care professionals. We don't need to, it's better to improve the attractiveness of the profession and to have reserves which we mobilize. The fourth area is to have access to medicines and devices. We've seen this. This is essential. We develop strategic stocks at the local and national level, support relocalization of production in Europe, and we need to have coordinated European responses. Distinguished members, the resilience of European health systems is based on regional and local systems, which are solid, coordinated governance and the sufficient financial resources to be able to adapt to the crisis. It is also based on the conviction that we shouldn't have a silent silo approach and to have a coordinated approach. We need to have a continuum in Europe. And when it comes to operational deployment, it's together that we can construct that. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you.”
  EU competences on health (internal-competence axis, sharpened)
• “Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the high quality of her work and say how much we agree with many of her proposals. I think the amendments show that we'll have good progressive approach to this. I've been working closely with my colleague Cecilia Estrada, who's shadow in the FAM committee. The Parliament's work on health inequalities linked to gender is essential. I think that health and treatment were developed using a male reference which ignores the specific nature of women's bodies. And we have not taken into account the specific risks for women. This is something we're trying to work against. Now, now, if we're all fighting for the European Commission to give the best follow up possible to my voice, my chose when we're talking about abortion rights I think it's key that we have to work towards effective access for this as well. I think we need to go further than what the rapporteur has proposed in recognising diseases specific to women. Endometriosis is covered in the report, but we will add amendments to link to other diseases. In fact, PCOS or uterine fibrosis, which up till now are largely unknown and untreated undertreated.”
  Sexuality and reproduction
• “Is there an awareness in the commission of these challenges for public health and unfair competition? First question. My question is simple. You're responsible for export of pesticides that are banned in Europe but exported outside of Europe. Will you be proposing a legislative text on this? My second question relates to NGOs because you didn't respond to Mr. Cameron's question. So there are two very simple questions. Article 17 of the treaty says that members of the Commission will not receive any instructions from any government institution or body. Have you had a deal with the EPP? Did you propose to miss von der Leyen to publish a text of which the draft was written by the EPP? And is this draft from the EPP? And in that draft that you published, you talk about undue lobbying activities. What does that mean? You publish Published this text. So could you perhaps explain those words? And finally, you talked about precise and detailed activities that are not illegal. Could you. Confirm that this is linked to requests from the Commission to facilitate reporting activities, and not based on the NGOs concerned? Thank you.”
  Pesticides & trade
• “Thank you very much. I'll be speaking French. Madam Commissioner, as you know, we cannot risk the use of pesticides banned in Europe or residue or accept that we can produce and export pesticides that are banned in Europe now.”
  Pesticides & trade
• “Thank you. I'll speak French. Now, you've seen the data from the European Agency. Now, Europe is late in, uh, defending biodiversity, in combating climate change and adapting to climate. But when the member states are going backwards, it's the Cities and the regions that are acting and who define good environmental practices because they are adapted to the reality of their territory. So as MEPs, you've got to try and support the roles of cities and regions in combating climate change and adapting and saving biodiversity. Now we need another 750 billion investment per year in the environmental agency's report. And this has to come from all the budgets, which includes including that of the local bodies. But as long as they are supported by the EU. And here I have to go back to what Mr. McCarthy said on, uh, this role, it's this weight on the capacity of the, uh, population, and it will be necessary to recentralize and have competing policies and in lowering the the amounts that are given to cities and regions. So I think that all the members elected have to say no to this MFF, no to the national plans, the pseudo partnerships with cities and regions to defend a different vision of the cohesion policy and its future. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you very much, chairman. I think we all need to remember that the ocean is the ecosystem on which our life is built. And the future of our lives on Earth are built. These crimes, these slaughter that is taking place in the Faroe Islands. These are terrible signs that show to the world that we can just do whatever we want with biodiversity and with ocean resources, that we can commit crimes in the ocean against nature with complete impunity. And Jean-Marc Germain, Watson and I yesterday have opposed this illegal fisheries. And these acts must stop. Obviously, legally it's not in the European Union. But as my colleagues have said, the Faroe Islands benefit from their agreement, their partnership with the European Union. Security of the Faroe Islands is guaranteed by the countries and the forces of the European Union. So the European Union cannot simply stand by and accept that a territory that has such close links with it continues these crimes against biodiversity and these crimes against ocean life. This must stop now. The European Commission, with the help of the Council, must take the necessary measures so that this stops. Otherwise, everything we've done at Nice and the ratification of treaties on protecting biodiversity in the high seas, all of that is pointless. We will look ridiculous to the rest of the world. It's urgent. We need to set an example. Europe. The European Union needs to act and stop this slaughter. Stop this grindadrap, which dates back to the Middle Ages and the Faroe Islands. And protect the oceans properly. Thank you.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• “So I think this is a too restrictive approach. And what the chemicals agency has produced in their assessment is to moving towards a general restriction on the use of PFAs with derogations for use cases and not exemptions on whole sectors. So can you clarify that point? Because derogations for use cases is not the same as exempting whole sectors?”
  PFAs