Verena MERTENS

Policy topics Verena MERTENS is active on

What Verena MERTENS has said (5)

• 2024-11-12 “E-002498/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is not planning to revise the categorisation of sheep wool. Categorisation of animal by-products into different risk categories is a basic risk mitigation measure. Sheep wool may present a risk to public health and to animal health. Wool is included in Category 3 by the Regulation (EC) No 1069/2029 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 , as other comparable animal by-products, such as feather, animal hair, horns and hoof cuts. Category 3 is the least risky category possible. The comprehensive and proportionate EU animal by-product rules 2 duly allow the valorisation and commercialisation of wool after certain necessary risk-mitigating treatments. In addition, several derogations for more flexibility are provided for by the EU animal by-product rules for the collection, transport, handling, and use of wool, under the discretion of the national competent authorities. Changing the list of agricultural products in Annex 1 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union would require an amendment of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which can only be amended in accordance with the procedures of Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union and cannot be amended by the Commission. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 1–33. 2 https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/animal-products_en”
  GMOs
• “(17:32:55 – 17:36:10): Thank you, Chair. You, the colleagues. Yes. I'm pleased to speak on behalf of MEP Mandel, Rapporteur for the Liebe Option Opinion Institutional Aspects of Artificial Intelligence in the context of European integration. MEP Mandel's intention is to provide AFCO with helpful clarifications in the AI Act and other IA related proposals coming from 1 of the committees competent for AI in this house. The amendments focus on 3 priorities. First, competitiveness. Europe must lead in AI innovation, not just regulated. The opinion emphasizes the need for proportionate, innovation friendly rules that avoid unnecessary administrative burdens and that enable European businesses to compete globally. The digital omnibus on AI is a step in the right direction, simplifying implementation and clarifying data use for AI training. Second, democratic oversight. The parliament must have the capacity to scrutinize AI's impact. The rapporteur provides additional context and ideas for the consideration of the AI Observatory, building on the existing governance framework such as the IMCoLIBER AI Act working group and call for AI literacy training for staff and MEPs. Effective oversight requires expertise and governance requires capacity. Finally, global leadership. The rapporteur welcomes the Council of Europe's AI Convention as a valuable global baseline for rights based AI governance. At the same time, the opinion emphasizes that EU law already sets a higher standard with the EI Act leading the way. The rapporteur invites countries worldwide to join the convention as it aligns with our values and strengthens the global framework. Regular reflection should take place on preventing systematic risks and ensuring democratic accountability at a global level. These amendments emphasis the balance between innovation and accountability, competitiveness and oversight and European values vis a vis global ambition. MEP Mandel looks forward to any feedback and looks forward to working together to shape a future where AI serves our citizens and strengthens democracy. Thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “(17:53:30 – 17:57:12): you, Chairman. I'll be speaking German. Dear Commission representative, dear colleagues, thank you very much for this proposal. Illegal firearms are a real threat to the internal security in the EU on the part of terrorists, violence, and organized crime. Now the fact that we need to cooperate more here in the EU is right and is necessary. We in the EPP are clear about this. We need a targeted approach to regulation, and we really need to tackle the problem. And there are four, five points therefore of paramount importance as I see it. First of all, the approach to banning blueprints is something we understand, but the current definition as I see it is too broad and not every digital data set of components can lead to a firearm that can be fired and therefore shouldn't automatically be covered by the ban. And unless you demarcate that clearly, there will be legal uncertainty and then legal operators will be harmed rather than criminal structures. Then certain offenses now come under criminal law, where in the past that wasn't the case. And, again, you need to demarcate clearly. Otherwise, what we support is disproportionate and won't have acceptance. So criminal law needs to be precise. You need to be able to apply it in practice. Then traceability of weapons, the marking of components firearms is important and needs to occur on the basis of existing systems. If we were to set up an additional new system, then instead of having increased interoperability, we risk having duplicate structures and simply having more bureaucracy. My fourth point then is to say that the Schengen area basically only works if you have uniform application. So the provisions need to be so clear that you can't have a different interpretation in every member state because that will then create loopholes. So that is something we need to avoid. And in practice, controls are used to tackle crimes with firearms. So you need sufficient resources that are available and you need specialist investigative teams and increased cooperation within member states and between member states. And we support the objective being pursued with the report, but we need clear legislative definitions which can be applied in practice, and you also need exceptions for authorized stakeholders and, of course, clear sanctions and penalties that concentrate matters on organized crime. And I have one question at the very end, just very briefly. How is the commission going to ensure that in relation to blueprints, the criminal provisions are defined in such a way that legal actors do not get caught in the crosshairs? Thank you, missus Martins. Now PFE.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “President, honorable members. While we debate this matter, criminal networks are sending messages to children, not randomly. This is a targeted professional operation. They lure children in with the promise of easy money, status, a sense of belonging, turn them into drug mules, lookouts, or even contract killers. Recruitment by organized criminals often doesn't begin nowadays on the street, but rather via smartphones. We see that all around Europe, in Sweden, Belgium, and Germany. I'm a former police officer, and let me tell you that anyone who places a weapon in the hands of a child is destroying their future and endangering the safety of all. We therefore need to ensure greater resources made available to investigative authorities to examine the digital world. That is the only way to track down these perpetrators in the digital arena. We need swift pooling of information in Europe. We need to turn Europe all into a data hub at European level, a center for coordination and cooperation. Our security authorities cannot fight against digital cartels using analog resources. Europe can never allow its children to be turned into the foot soldiers of criminal networks.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse
• “I was a police officer for several years, and this work sharpened my eye for strategies used by perpetrators and gaps in protection. Depictions of abuse online are forms of documented violence against children. This is violence against children who are defenseless and who often do not understand what is being done to them. And then these crimes cause wounds that last a lifetime. This is why we must not have any gaps in protection until the system regulation comes into force. If we remove unknown abuse material and grooming from the interim regulation, that would be a fatal signal because that is exactly where new crimes are uncovered. Perpetrators are identified and children are protected. Data protection that shields perpetrators isn't progress, it's failure. If you want to protect children effectively, we must have legal access to relevant data. Our benchmark is clear. We protect children, not the perpetrators.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse