Ton DIEPEVEEN

Policy topics Ton DIEPEVEEN is active on

What Ton DIEPEVEEN has said (24)

• 2026-07-15 “(11:14:40 - 11:16:36): Thank you very much. Thank you, mister Ripassi. Your report is a considerable improvement over the commission proposal, but we are going to submit some amendments on a number of different aspects. You've talked about yourself, the legal basis, the insolvency law provisions, the fast track procedure, the payment regime, and, of course, the social aspects, worker involvement, and money laundering. So there will be quite a number of them. First of all, on the legal basis, as far as we're concerned, it's quite clear that the 28th regime is going to be important in terms of freedom of establishment article 50, the founding one of the founding articles, and that is the context in which it must be established. Then the scope, it must, as far as we're concerned, be clearly focused on innovation and startups. Large companies already established would not fall under the umbrella of this. Therefore, we need to look at fiscal and social fraud from the point of view of small innovating companies, then innovation and insolvency. There have been some proposals put forward which were rejected when we debated the insolvency directive that was proposed, and they didn't go through the trialogue either. Yet here we are again in the context of the 28th regime. The commission is proposing the same provisions on insolvency. This creates the impression that proposals can simply be put in through the backdoor even although they've already been rejected by the institutions, the same as has happened with the chat control, by the way. So this is a political sleight of hand. I don't have very long, so I'll maybe leave it at that. But those are my main points. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-07-09 “Mr. president. Commissioner, today's debate is about the evaluation of the CFP. When you took office back in 2024, we were already talking about the landing obligation. This is an obligation which is simply not practical for fishermen. You said this needs to be reviewed. Two years on, however, we can see that no practical measures have been taken. In December 2025, my own initiative report regarding the modernisation and sustainability of the fisheries sector was adopted by the Parliament. There was a call in that report to simplify rules, make them more flexible so as to allow new measures. We called for the ability to modernise ships to separate gross tonnage rules from real fishing capacity, calling for safer ships, improve working conditions and new engines. There once again, there has been a total lack of practical action when it comes to innovative fish fishing techniques, such as pulse fishing techniques, which use less fuel, which lead to less discards. But there's still this whole proposal is caught up in political blockages rather than being assessed on the basis of science, it's being rejected. So once again, no action there. Fishermen need to invest so to modernize the fleet. But in reality, we've actually seen a major drop in the budget for the CFP. And the commission seems to think that national and regional plans will make up for this drop in funding. Let's be honest, if fishing has to compete with other European priorities, fishermen will be at the back of the queue here. Once again, no practical action has been taken to defend the budget for fisheries. Commissioner, via your president. Fishermen do not need new strategies or new ocean patch. What they do need are improved more flexible rules, legal certainty and prospects for the future. This is why I'd like to repeat that we have to act on the Landing Obligation Act. We need to act on innovation and on the budget. Thank you.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• 2026-06-23 “(11:51:07 – 11:53:13): you, chair. I speak in Dutch. Forschitter. Chairman, the efforts for simplification from the European Commission are something that we're happy with. We know how complicated it is to simplify the digital rules. This stimulates the development of new technology companies are also working in other larger markets. There are a few points that we think that this could undermine. However, 1st of all, we'd like greater protection for trade secrets, so that we can, protect our countries, from countries with higher risks like China. It's not always possible to provide the protection from the risk of if you're a smaller company, they shouldn't, have to carry out expensive and lengthy analysis, to protect themselves. Search for data also must be exchanged on the basis of, well known risks. The next point is that we're against the creation of a, Central European. We would like to have a 1 central point per member state than 1 single for Europe. We want to be able to protect our SMEs. Many of our companies SMEs don't work beyond the borders. We would like to encourage the repertoire to work on further, requirements for, harmonizing requirements for registration. And, we see that, this side of, sort of sliding European harmonization would, undermine our goals of speeding up our data work. We think we'll have a constructive work with our rapporteur. Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• 2025-10-08 “E-003949/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the investigation into cases of doctors who, despite losing a licence in one country, continue to practice their profession in another Member State. While the Commission is committed to addressing the matters within its remit, it notes that the competent authorities of Member States remain responsible for identifying the cases on their territory where doctors are unfit to pursue their profession and to apply relevant measures. Alerts received through the Internal Market Information system (IMI) may constitute an additional source of information. They may complement, but not replace, the checks that healthcare authorities and competent institutions of the competent Member States apply before granting license or hiring a doctor. When preparing new guidelines and facilitating exchanges of good practices in the context of the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors, the Commission aims to address all aspects of handling alerts in IMI and remind about Member States’ obligations. Following a workshop on the legal and practical matters related to the alerts with the Member State experts earlier this year, the Commission prepared a draft Questions and Answers guidance document. It was presented and discussed with the Member States experts, and it will be finalised by the end of 2025, following input from the training sessions conducted in December 2025. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission monitors the application of the relevant legal provisions by the Member States and support them through compliance promotion activities such as trainings and on-going assistance. When necessary, the Commission may decide to take appropriate action.”
  EU competences on health
• 2025-06-17 “E-002435/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission As the Commission set out in its reply to written question E-00161/2025, the Competitiveness Compass 1 announced the initiative on the 28 th regime as one of the key measures to contribute to EU competitiveness and to make business easier and faster in Europe. The 28 th regime will include an EU corporate legal framework based on digital by default solutions to help companies overcome barriers when setting up and operating as well as attracting investment across the Single Market. It will also address specific aspects within relevant areas of law, including insolvency, labour and tax law. In this respect, the recent Single Market Strategy 2 further explained that the 28 th regime will provide a single set of rules, potentially in a progressive and modular way. The EU corporate legal framework will not touch upon any State aid rules and companies under the EU corporate legal framework will be subject to the State aid rules in a similar way than any other EU companies. There is no intention to make possible tax revenues generated by companies under the 28 th regime an own resource of the EU. 1 COM(2025) 30 final. 2 COM(2025) 500 final.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · EU competences on taxation · Own EU resources
• 2025-06-04 “E-002229/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Granting a marketing authorisation based on limited data is not a new concept. Under the current legislation 1 , it is possible to grant a Conditional Marketing Authorisation 2 to a medicine addressing a seriously debilitating or life-threatening disease based on less comprehensive clinical data at the time of authorisation, to address an unmet medical need, provided that a positive benefit–risk balance of the product has been favourably demonstrated. The new pharmaceutical Regulation 3 proposed by the Commission and currently under negotiation proposes a Temporary Emergency Marketing Authorisation (TEMA) to ensure the swift availability of safe and efficacious medicinal products in the EU when they are directly related to an ongoing public health emergency. For the TEMA, the principle of an objective scientific assessment of the safety and efficacy of the medicine is maintained, based on the available knowledge, under the premise that the medicine’s benefits outweigh the risks in the context of the public health emergency. Unlike the Member State’s temporary authorisation for the distribution of an unauthorised medicinal product in emergencies 4 , for the TEMA, as for any other marketing authorisation, the marketing authorisation holder bears the responsibility for marketing a medicine. The TEMA is not intended to affect the civil or criminal liability of the manufacturer or of the marketing authorisation holder pursuant to the applicable national law in Member States 5 . 1 Article 14-a of Regulation (EC) 726/2004, OJ L 136, 30.4.2004. 2 https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/marketing-authorisation/conditional-marketingauthorisation. 3 Article 30 of the Commission proposal for a Regulation (COM(2023)193 final). 4 Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC, OJ L 311, 28.11.2001. 5 Idem, Article 23.”
  Patient access vs withdrawal/non-authorisation of orphan and innovative drugs
• 2025-04-01 “E-001335/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) 1 requires the removal of micropollutants from urban wastewaters with quaternary treatment. The Polluter-Pays Principle 2 is enshrined in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Court of Auditors 3 recommended strengthening the integration of this principle into environmental legislation. The UWWTD refers to it 4 and provides for an extended producer responsibility system (EPR) whereby the pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors, which represent the main source of micropollutants in urban wastewater 5 , finance at least 80 % of the quaternary treatment costs. The impact assessment accompanying the Commission’s proposal assessed the cost of such extended producer responsibility system and its impact 6 on the pharmaceutical sector at EU level. In addition, as announced in the Water Resilience Strategy 7 of 4 June 2025, in the context of the implementation of the extended producer responsibility, the Commission will conduct an updated study of costs and its potential impacts on concerned sectors. In addition, the Commission will continue to support Member States in the pragmatic design of national systems with a view to avoiding unexpected or unintended consequences, in particular for the availability and affordability of medicines. 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/economy-and-finance/ensuring-polluters-pay_en. 3 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/SR21_12. 4 Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2024/3019. 5 Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a Directive concerning urban wastewater treatment (recast): https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-revised-urban-wastewater-treatment-directive_en. 6 Ibid. 7 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en.”
  Pharma companies manufacturing and production obligations · Water pollution
• 2025-02-05 “P-000518/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission While quota shares of jointly managed stocks are stable from this year onwards, as established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement 1 (TCA) reciprocal access to waters is in principle subject to annual consultations after July 2026. Any such annual consultations must be conducted in good faith and with the objective to ensure a mutually satisfactory balance between the interests of both Parties and should normally result in access being provided at a level reasonably commensurate with each Party’s share of the Total Allowable Catches (TACs). The EU and the United Kingdom have a mutual interest in cooperating in fisheries, working closely within the Specialised Committee on Fisheries and having successfully agreed on annual basis on TACs for jointly managed stocks since 2021. Though access adds a further element to this, in the event of a withdrawal or suspension of access by one Party after July 2026, the relevant provisions of the TCA would apply. Either Party may take compensatory measures commensurate to the economic and societal impact of the change in the level and conditions of access to waters. Such measures may include suspending access to waters and the preferential tariff treatment granted to fisheries products under the TCA. The Fisheries Heading is an important element of the balanced commitments under the TCA. In the mission letter of the Commissioner responsible for fisheries and oceans 2 , the President of the Commission highlights the importance of fairness and a level playing field for EU operators, while stressing the need to work towards securing stable and predictable access to waters. The Commission is fully committed to defending the EU interests, to ensure longterm stability beyond July 2026. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2021.149.01.0010.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2021%3A149%3ATO C 2 https://commission.europa.eu/document/028ce7d5-e328-4416-8f0d-35c8884acaa8_en”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2024-12-12 “E-002904/2024 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The impact assessment on the proposal for the Insolvency Directive 1 included a direct consultation carried out by the Commission, and an additional study which included further consultations. The Study was published on the Commission website 2 . The Commission ensured that there was a balanced geographical distribution of stakeholders and experts consulted. Its direct consultation was open to all stakeholders and published on the Commission website 3 : stakeholders consulted came from 18 Member States and dedicated workshops with private and governmental experts were organised. Contractor’s consultation was performed via direct interviews with stakeholders from 15 EU Member States, including the Netherlands, and through an online survey targeting more than 800 stakeholders covering 24 Member States with 120 completed responses 4 . Since most stakeholders and experts favoured a harmonisation of directors’ duties in the vicinity of insolvency and in view of its economic benefits as assessed in the impact assessment, the Commission proposed a requirement to request the opening of insolvency proceedings within three months 5 . 1 SWD(2022) 395 final. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/civil-justice/civiland-commercial-law/insolvency-proceedings_en#research-and-key-documents 3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12592-Insolvency-laws-increasingconvergence-of-national-laws-to-encourage-cross-border-investment/public-consultation_en 4 Annex 2 of the impact assessment and section 2.3. of the impact assessment study. 5 Sections 2.2., 2.6. and 3 of Appendix to Annex 2 of the impact assessment.”
  EU engagement with civil society · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2024-12-12 “P-002905/2024 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The revised fisheries control Regulation 1 , as agreed by the co-legislators, introduced several provisions which require that the Commission prepares implementing and delegated acts for Member States and operators to be able to implement them. Some of these provisions will enter into force in 2026, others in 2027 and in 2028. The Commission has been conducting comprehensive technical consultations with Member States to prepare these acts. Member States have been given adequate time to react to the Commission’s proposals. This process is still on-going. Reducing administrative burden is an important parameter for the Commission in the preparation of these acts. As an illustration, the aim of the Commission is to simplify the implementing legislation in force (Regulation 404/2011 2 ) by removing or updating many articles and several annexes as they have become obsolete or require adaptation to implement the revised rules. Many of the new implementing rules incorporate flexibility to facilitate implementation, minimise complexity and digitalise reporting. The Commission is bound by the empowerment given by the co-legislators in the revised fisheries control Regulation. In particular, articles 60(10) and 60a(1) and (2) of this Regulation empower the Commission to adopt implementing and delegated acts on weighing procedures. On that basis, the Commission services are currently preparing draft weighing rules in close consultation with the Member States, taking also into consideration the recent recommendations from the European Fisheries Control Agency. These new provisions related to weighing contained in Articles 60 (10) and 60a of the Regulation will need to be in place before January 2027. 1 Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 November 2023 as regards fisheries control, OJ L, 2023/2842, 20.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2842/oj 2 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 112, 30.4.2011, p. 1–15, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2011/404/oj”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2024-11-27 “P-002677/2024 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The EU’s sanitary and phytosanitary standards are non-negotiable and are not affected by this or any other trade agreement. Imported products must always comply with the EU’s strict food safety requirements because the EU’s key priority is the health of its citizens – including food safety. To protect the health of EU citizens, the Commission also bans imports into the EU of all food products, including beef, from animals that have been treated with hormones and beta-agonists (such as oestradiol 17β). Following an audit in 2024, the Commission recommended that Brazil improves its control system by taking corrective measures. Brazil is implementing these measures and has confirmed that only male animals will be considered eligible for export to the EU, thereby suspending exports of meat from female animals to the EU until the necessary guarantees are in place to ensure that meat from female animals destined for the EU market has never been treated with any hormones or beta-agonists for reproductive or zootechnical purposes. As regards sensitive EU agriculture products, the Commission refers to its answer to question E-001988/2024 1 , where it explains that the EU negotiated limited concessions in the form of tariff rate quotas that represent a small fraction of EU consumption. These partial openings will be phased in to allow the sectors to adjust. They will be coupled with safeguard clauses to protect the EU market in case of serious injury caused by Mercosur imports. The announced reserve of at least EUR 1 billion will provide an additional safety net for farmers and rural areas. Mercosur countries will eliminate high tariffs on EU industrial exports, including sectors where the Netherlands have a competitive edge (e.g. mineral fuels and oils, machinery, pharmaceutical products, optical, medical-surgical, measuring instruments and vehicles) and on EU agricultural exports including for products where the Netherlands have a competitive edge (e.g. beer, vegetables). These tariffs reductions will make Dutch products more competitive and attractive to Mercosur consumers 2 . 1 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-001988_EN.html 2 More information on the economic benefits can be found on https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-traderelationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/mercosur/eu-mercosur-agreement/factsheets-andguides_en”
  Trade relations with Mercosur · Import of agri-food products in the EU
• 2024-09-23 “P-001786/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission welcomes and follows closely scientific publications that may have an impact on fisheries, and therefore, is aware of the publications mentioned. Some of the conclusions, such as those on the potential of some fishing techniques to reduce the impact on the seabed were already shared by the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries in 2020 1 , and echoed by the first report on the implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 2 . While not included in the initial Commission proposal for that Regulation, the final decision of the co-legislators in 2019 was to ban electric pulse fishing and allow it to continue only for scientific purposes under strict conditions set out in the above-mentioned Regulation. The second report on the implementation of the Regulation was adopted in July 2024 3 . This report includes updates on the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on innovative gear 4 and underlines the need to invest in research and innovation. It presents as well the efforts made by both Member States and stakeholders in this field. The Commission will continue to engage with the scientists, fisheries managers and stakeholders to encourage the development and use of innovative fishing techniques within the context of continuing to optimise fishing patterns, reduce impact on sensitive habitats and with a view of transitioning to less energy use. The Commission will closely follow the outcomes of these discussions, as well as the scientific advice on the field, and regularly assess whether amendments to the existing legal framework are justified. 1 Review of technical measures, Part I, STECF 20-02. EUR 28359 EN. 2 Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005, OJ L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 105–201 - https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0583 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2024:349:FIN 4 https://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/news-archive/news/Pages/InnovativeGear.aspx”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Madam President. Commissioner. Good morning colleagues. European agriculture is all seized up. The Green Deal has paralysed it. What farmers need is not more ideology, but more room to create food security, to earn their living and to freedom to farm. The idea of one big agricultural fund with more centralisation is not the solution. What we need is to cut back overregulation, which is blocking innovation and stifling entrepreneurship. The key word is innovation also for agriculture, whether it's renewable precision agriculture, a new genomic techniques or other techniques that are still to be developed. We need to give more space, more leeway. We shouldn't be holding farmers back. I'm counting on the commission to adapt the legislation as soon as possible, so that innovation remains possible now and tomorrow. What farmers need is not some policy maze, but a clear and well-regulated framework. Only if we make these necessary changes. Inches. Will we be able to make them competitive? And only if we promise them a future. Can we expect young farmers to go into farming.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• “I'm somewhat skeptical as to how we achieve this. The rapporteur says that AI developers need to be made more aware of copyright rights. I'm sure that AI developers are well aware of copyright and rights holders rights. We don't need to invest in awareness raising amongst A.I. developers. And I see the rapporteur nodding here. Now what about a centralised register? The rapporteur says that we entrust this to the EU IPO. That way the AI developers can see which content is copyright protected In the Netherlands, we're not aware of any requirement to register copyright. Copyrights exist automatically, so a registration obligation would be unnecessary and create extra costs. The copyright holders would have to be proactive to protect their own rights. It would be very difficult to do this in many cases. I think that an opt in regime would be better than an opt out. Chairman, I'm finishing up on transparency requirement. Ai developers need to train their models and to ensure transparency on the content used to train their models. Thank you, chairman, for giving me the time to read out my statement.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank You, President, Commissioner. In ever more member states, children are press ganged into serious criminal activity acting even across borders. In December 2024, a Dutch drug dealer was killed in Spain by a Belgian teenager hired by an organized crime gang. Organized crime likes to use children because they often face lighter sentences. Criminal organizations see these children as disposable, cheap, replaceable, and a safe legal bet. Member states have different scales of punishment when children are involved in criminal activity, and that is misused. Prevention alone is not enough. Anyone found guilty of recruiting children for crime should face severe punishment, but the children themselves, if they are repeatedly involved in organized crime, should also face severe punishment. And in some cases, their parents should also face punishment. It is down to member states to prosecute a number of crimes, but that is not always the case. We need more European cooperation. We need to ensure that Europol plays a key role here. Recently,”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “Chair, I'll speak Dutch. Let me begin by agreeing with Mr. Repassi regarding the absence of the rapporteur and how we have to follow the proper procedure. Now, regarding what the rapporteur has said to us, I would look back and there are a number of important points that we want to see back in, and I'd like to thank the rapporteur for having the political courage to include some of our compromise in the compromise text. But some fundamental points. They look back, period. It's being brought down from four to three years, so that's a year less than the Commission's proposal. It's a step in the right direction, but we'd like it brought further down to two years. So less intervention by the administrator, that's fair enough, that'd be a better treatment of the insolvency and fewer costs, but we make serious – we have serious concerns about the flexibilization, about the access of foreign administrators to national databanks. We are – you're concerned about cyber security and data privacy and the theft of data and so on, so it's fundamentally important for us that member states have some fallback to refuse access to national databanks where there's serious concerns about the integrity of the administrator seeking access to data. So we're fundamentally at odds and disagreements about the submission requirement, which is something that exists in Sweden and Netherlands, where you have twice the EU average for the relevant criteria. So the exception here is subject to a strict condition, and we would be in favour of scrapping this condition, because it would be ridiculous for the two countries with the best insolvency law in Europe to abandon their position in this regard. So regard creditors' committees to be reduced to larger companies, the costs that are associated with such creditors' committee are borne by the assets of the insolvent company, as far as I know. So we should maximize the advantages of the creditors to reduce the costs to the minimum. So we would think that the text has to be adapted in this regard, and if the rapporteur wants the support of the patriots, then he would have it in this regard. I hope that in the negotiations we can come to a compromise in the committee and in the general parliament.”
  EU regulation on financial data access
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, colleagues. The Mercosur agreement offers opportunities, but also many risks. Our farmers are overwhelmed with regulation, and imports from South America are going to worsen this situation. The commission's report says that in Brazil. Um, the use of hormones in meat will be, um, banned, but also seems to be all under control. But we just don't believe it. In in Netherlands, there's economic growth of 0.0%. Uh, we have farmers who need support. The Mercosur benefits. The trade agreement will go to the farmers in um in Brazil. This won't be aware. This won't lead to fair competition. This is a crazy agreement. Please just delete it. Get rid of it. Mr. Commissioner. Support our farmers and get them out of this bureaucratic waste.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. I'm going to speak Dutch, so I'll give you a couple of moments to get your headsets on. Thank you. Chair. Let me just thank all of the guest speakers for their contributions. We've heard an awful lot of information, and I think that we should carry on our work in this committee so that we can put flesh on the bones of what you've told us. And. I've got a couple of questions. One, particularly, we're talking about tax incentives for start ups and companies that might find a place for themselves in this 28th regime. The question I have is as follows. What about the Court of Justice? The Court of Justice has said that tax incentives can be equated to state aid. Could you perhaps tell us to what extent that applies to competition law in the EU? That's just one aspect. There's an awful lot in play here. Miss Bradford, for example, brought up a lot of points. In the various presentations we heard the question of taxation. So tax incentives is something that I'm particularly interested in which as I mentioned can be equated to state aid. Axel Voss has already said that we've discussed this several times. It remains to be resolved. We'll have to see how things develop. I don't wish to take a stance at this stage. I wouldn't say that I'm either optimistic or pessimistic. But I would come back to what Miss Bradford said. There was an awful lot of information in that, but it does show how difficult it is to make a comparison between the situation between the US and the EU, and we're very happy to hear your reaction to that.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Thank you very much, chairman. I'll be speaking Dutch. Chairman of ministers homologation protocol. Thank you very much for your presentation. Now with simplification, simplification comes up 19 times in the Danish presidency's programme. So I take it that you really consider it excessive regulation as a serious point. And I hope that over the next six months that you will be able to deal with that. And then of course, omnibus was mentioned. Now, the EU must really be ambitious in trying to get rid of redundant legislation. Omnibus is a step in the right direction, but a lot more has to be done. What is your position there now? What is what is your mandate for the trilogue on this? Now I think that there are some, Um, some member states are not happy with the CSS triple D. Uh, of course it's not just a question of the omnibus. Where do we need further cuts? Where do you think that there's margin for more simplification? I also have a question about artificial intelligence. Now, I've read that the Danish government have a bill presented to Parliament. Where people would, um, have, um, recognized certain rights, certain, uh, rights regarding their person, their individual rights, so as to avoid, um, deep, uh, fakes and the like. And I'd also like to know what your position is regarding copyright.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you chairman. I would like to thank Axel Voss, our rapporteur, for his draft report. We need to ensure that existing law is respected, but we don't want to hinder technological development. We need to balance AI development, innovation and copyright. So it is important to discuss the issues at play. We need to look at the copyright directive and see where it doesn't work well. The opt out would be very expensive and take up a lot of time. Most European companies would not be happy with this. The rapporteur is looking to accelerate the process and I support that endeavour now on suitable remuneration for use of copyright protected content in the Netherlands. In 2022 this contributed 6% to GDP. This is a stable and important economic sector. It creates jobs so it is crucial. We need to protect this sector and it should not be decimated by generative AI. We need to look at suitable remuneration for copyright protected content. We need to look at how this can be done. We need some sort of simple approach simplified Rules so that we don't have protective procedures in place.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you very much, chair. I'll be speaking Dutch. I don't really know where to start. I'm a lawyer myself. I do have some experience in this area, particularly in the area of supervision. Implementation of regulations. Various different examples, indeed from the Netherlands. I was listening as well from. I heard from the commission that. Citizens can notify infractions that they have seen, and I've got an example myself from quite recently an action group protested in the Netherlands. The Netherlands. Quite Insistently on a million tons of granite extracts, which are used in being. Added into various different ingredients. Now indeed. These. This situation is not toxic. However, it is if the dynamite is liberated and then it becomes very toxic and dangerous. So these granular parts. well, it was a million tons. So citizens demonstrated. There was a lot of reporting on the television and. A lot of people got involved in these demonstrations. And civil proceedings and other types of proceedings have been started. The court has the court presented. Some information last year following a report that was raised by journalists. So the alarm was really sounded as regards this environmental crime crime. But they weren't wasn't necessarily heard. This company was completely supported by a minister from the Netherlands, simply because the products that were manufactured by the company are necessary, if you like, for asphalt as a part of the ingredients for asphalt.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• “Thank you. Chairman. A great deal has already been said, and a great deal of what has been said are points I wanted to make. What is important is that I think we all agree that our farmers are not being paid enough for what they provide. And with this observatory, and this point has been made by others. What is important is that on the basis of what you observe, we then receive specific proposals. You know that the Commission puts those forward and the Parliament can also look at those. We need to take a closer look at what is needed to improve the position of farmers on the market. So what is missing is transparency and specific proposals. You know, we can discuss the observatory at length. I think we all realize that change is needed, but we need sound analyses coupled with sound proposals. Otherwise, it's just a talking shop. So my question to the commission is, once the observatory has produced good observations, who is going to take that work forward? How are you going to make sure something is done?”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “I understand what the advantages of this directive are as regards the situation today, but quite sincerely, I see there's a lot of difficulty and the practical side of things the training of police, training of judicial professionals in the Netherlands. We have experts, we have huge numbers of qualified people. But the initiatives that end up succeeding are quite limited. Environmental crimes are well, for the time being, we don't really see much success. There are also debates on the civil level, and I think we also need to have a look at the interests there. What are the interests at play? Clearly, there are other interests. At stake, including ministerial interests. So I saw well and good. But we need to see what happens with the supervision of the implementation and the public prosecutor's office, whether they are going to really focus enough on this type of crime. I think we need to really focus on citizens interests at the environmental level, but also in other contexts. And I think that we could also ask, how can we how do we explain the fact that very few cases end up reaching the the end of the judicial proceedings? So I am quite curious to see what the experiences are that you've had in your respective countries.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• “So this million Tons. Is a huge problem. When ministers spoke up about it and said this is a particularly dangerous situation. Then a information was sent out from the hierarchy in the ministry to pull back on it. So yes, sir, provisions were taken, but then what happens? Well, the provisions are taken, but they're not necessarily respected. If we want to really protect citizens, then we need to guarantee the support. When citizens point out that these things are taking place, citizens see that there's an infraction, then we need to make sure that the authorities face up to it. So on paper, yes, it's great, but in practice nothing happens. So environmental crimes. Well, I've seen certain cases, and I can tell you that it's very rare for this type of crime to end up in the judicial system. The proof, the burden of proof is very high. And in the Netherlands, very often there are cases that go back to 2018. But you see that at a certain point when the public minister decides not to continue, then, well, we can see what's been decided. And. Personally, I'm quite skeptical. As I said, I've given you examples from the Netherlands, but I've been working in the sector for a long time and I respect everything that's been said.”
  Environmental crimes and justice