Michael MCNAMARA

Policy topics Michael MCNAMARA is active on

What Michael MCNAMARA has said (47)

• 2026-01-22 “E-000261/2026 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The promotion and protection of Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) for all individuals around the world remains an essential priority of EU’s external action, as highlighted in the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (2020-2027) 1 . The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2 is one of the Conventions falling under the EU Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) 3 regulation and therefore part of the GSP+ monitoring exercise in Sri Lanka. During the annual EU-Sri Lanka working group on Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights the issue of minorities, including religious minorities, is extensively discussed. The last one took place on 5 May 2025 in Colombo back-to-back with a GSP+ monitoring mission. The Delegation of the EU to Sri Lanka is also in regular contact with civil society organisations and human rights defenders on FoRB. There are also specific EU funded programmes 4 on freedom of religion and empowerment of minority communities. The EU will continue to follow the situation very closely and raise it with the Sri Lanka authorities. 1 EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (2020-2027): https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2024/Action-Plan-EN_2020-2027.pdf. 2 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instrumentsmechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights. 3 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content/generalised-scheme-preferences-plus-gsp. 4 Two relevant grants related to the empowerment of minority communities are the following: (i) The Minority Rights Group grant on ‘Minority Empowerment for Democracy and Pluralism in Sri Lanka’; (ii) the National Peace Council grant on ‘Active Citizens for Elections and Democracy in Sri Lanka and the Maldives’.”
  EU competences on human rights
• 2025-10-10 “E-003986/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission Directive (EU) 2015/849 1 requires enhanced due diligence measures for all business relationships or transactions involving high-risk third countries 2 . While obliged entities can outsource certain functions to third parties, they cannot rely on third parties established in high-risk third countries, except for branches or majority-owned subsidiaries under certain conditions. This will continue to apply under the new framework in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 3 . Furthermore, under the new framework, the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) will issue guidelines on supervisory practices and anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements for obliged entities on outsourcing. These guidelines are to define the conditions under which outsourcing may occur and clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of all parties involved. They will also aim to ensure consistent oversight across the EU by providing guidance to supervisors on how to assess outsourcing arrangements and verify that such practices comply with AML/CFT obligations. Lastly, AMLA will also be required to carry out cost-benefit analyses in relation to the measures, guidelines and technical standards it proposes. This obligation, set out in Article 49 and subsequent provisions of the AMLA Regulation 4 , aims to ensure that AMLA’s regulatory initiatives are proportionate and take into account both the expected effectiveness of the measures and their potential impact on obliged entities. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L0849. 2 Risk-based exemptions are provided for branches or majority-owned subsidiaries of obliged entities established in the EU and located in high-risk third countries. 3 OJ L, 2024/1624, 19.6.2024. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1620/oj.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2025-09-17 “E-003591/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Investor residence schemes 1 aim to attract investment in exchange of residence rights. Investor citizenship schemes 2 are programmes systematically granting nationality in return for predetermined payments or investments. In a recent judgment 3 , the Court of Justice held that a Member State infringes the principle of sincere cooperation and jeopardises the mutual trust on which EU citizenship is based when it establishes and implements a naturalisation scheme based on a transactional procedure at the end of which the nationality of that Member State and EU citizenship is essentially granted in exchange for predetermined payments or investments 4 . This judgment concerns an investor citizenship scheme, and its findings do thus not relate to investor residence schemes. Currently, EU law does not regulate conditions to grant residence permits to foreign investors based on investor residence schemes. Member States remain free to regulate admission conditions and rights for investors who seek residence in the EU. The Commission has taken initiatives to address the risks of investor residence schemes for security, money-laundering, tax evasion and corruption 5 . The proposed recast of the LongTerm Residents Directive 6 includes rules to prevent foreign investors from abusively acquiring EU long-term resident status, and the Anti-Money Laundering package 7 introduces strict obligations on involved actors and requires Member States to put in place mitigating measures and to monitor and assess the risks 8 . The Commission will continue monitoring the development of this matter in Member States and take action as appropriate and within its competences. 1 Often referred to as ‘golden visa’. 2 Often referred to as ‘golden passports’. 3 Judgment of 29 April 2025, Commission v Malta, C-181/23, EU:C:2025:283. 4 Judgment of 29 April 2025, Commission v Malta, C-181/23, EU:C:2025:283, paragraph 99. 5 As identified in the 2019 Commission report on investor citizenship and residence schemes in the EU, COM(2019) 12 final, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2019-01/com_2019_12_final_report.pdf. 6 COM(2022) 650 final. 7 In particular: Directive (EU) 2024/1640 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the mechanisms to be put in place by Member States for the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Directive(EU) 2019/1937, and amending and repealing Directive (EU) 2015/849; Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing. 8 New rules will apply as of 10 July 2027.”
  Asylum & border control · EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• 2025-07-09 “E-002801/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission The 2020 Methodology for the identification of high-risk third countries 1 provides a transparent and predictable framework underpinning EU listings and de-listings. While the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) lists constitute the baseline for the EU list, the Commission also has the possibility to put forward a listing based on an autonomous assessment. The Commission always strives to reflect FATF decisions as soon as possible, by proposing an amendment to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 2 . It is noted that a limited number of jurisdictions, while de-listed by FATF, are required to implement additional actions in the form of ‘EU benchmarks’, the completion of which is a pre-requisite for their de-listing from the EU list. The Delegated Regulation is then submitted to co-legislators for their scrutiny. Beyond this legal requirement, the 2020 Methodology also provides for structured engagement with Member States experts, reporting to the European Parliament and Council, as well as exchanges with the country under assessment. 1 https://finance.ec.europa.eu/document/download/f745b6e8-735b-4855-b050f52276356fe6_en?filename=200507-anti-money-laundering-terrorism-financing-action-planmethodology_en.pdf. 2 OJ L 254, 20.9.2016, pp. 1–4.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2025-07-09 “E-002800/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Based on the scientific opinion adopted on 25 April 2025 by the European Medicine Agency’s Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP), on 6 June 2025 1 the Commission granted a conditional marketing authorisation for Duvyzat (active substance givinostat), intended for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The authorisation was granted within the timelines laid down in the legislation 2 following the consultation of the Member States in line with the comitology rules (examination procedure) 3 . Duvyzat is indicated for patients from the age of six who are able to walk, to be taken at the same time as corticosteroid treatment. The benefit of Duvyzat was shown in a clinical study where, patients aged six years and older receiving Duvyzat on top of corticosteroids, maintained mobility longer compared to patients receiving placebo and corticosteroids. The benefit was measured by a reduction in the time needed to complete the four-stair climb test after 18 months of treatment. To confirm the efficacy of Duvyzat, the company is requested to conduct two postauthorisation studies, a placebo-controlled study and an efficacy- safety study based on data from a patient registry of children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy 4 . 1 Union Register of medicinal products https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/communityregister/html/h1930.htm. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/726/oj/eng. 3 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/182/oj. 4 Duvyzat https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/duvyzat.”
  Pharmaceuticals regulation in EU
• 2025-07-09 “P-002802/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Commissioner regularly meets with a wide range of stakeholders in the course of his duties. Such engagement is an essential part of the policymaking process, ensuring that proposals are informed by diverse perspectives and experiences. It should be emphasised that participation in a meeting does not constitute an endorsement of the views expressed by any particular group or organisation.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine · EU foreign policy approach
• 2025-06-05 “P-002280/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) 1 requires that the seasonal variations of the load should be considered at the treatment plants built to ensure sufficient performance under normal local climatic conditions. However, under this Directive, Member States do not report for agglomerations below 2 000 population equivalent (p.e.). According to the latest available report 2 , in 2020, Ireland had a population of 5 million and reported 195 agglomerations generating more than 2 000 p.e. of which 179 complied with the requirements of the Directive and 16 were found non-compliant 3 . The wastewater load was connected to a collecting system or to an individual and appropriate system which corresponded to 3.9% of the wastewater load. The 2022 data reported by Ireland is currently undergoing a compliance assessment. The results are expected in Autumn 2025. As indicated above, the agglomerations below 2 000 p.e. do not fall within the scope of the Directive. However, the recast Directive 4 will, from 1 August 2027, cover agglomerations above 1 000 p.e. In line with Article 18 of the recast Directive, some more limited obligations identified in a risk assessment will apply for agglomerations below 1 000 p.e. This should allow for ensuring an appropriate assessment of agglomerations currently not covered by the Directive. 1 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40-52, Article 10. 2 UWWTD National Summary Chapter 2020 Ireland: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/65764c73-4a57-45dc8199-473014cf65bf/library/87af8cf1-e679-49ba-ba34-265d19b4547d/details. 3 Non-compliance areas under the UWWTD in Ireland are followed by the Commission in two infringement cases: INFR(2013)2056 (https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringementdecisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byCase&refId=INFR(2013)2056&activeCase=true&pag e=1&size=10&order=desc&sortColumns=refId) and INFR(2023)2178 (https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eulaw/search-infringementdecisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byCase&activeCase=true&page=1&size=10&order=desc &sortColumns=refId&refId=INFR(2023)2178). 4 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.”
  Water pollution · EU policy on water management
• 2025-03-14 “E-001102/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has been following the case of former lettori in Italian Universities very closely with the aim that Italy complies with the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in cases C-212/99 1 and C-119/04 2 . In July 2023, the Commission decided to refer Italy to the Court of Justice for maintaining discrimination of foreign lecturers 3 . Case C-519/23 4 is currently pending at the Court of Justice. The aim of the infringement procedure is to ensure that Italy puts appropriate measures in place to accommodate the requirements of the Court judgments. It is, however, for Italy to decide how to best accommodate the requirements of the Court judgments. Member States have a primary responsibility to monitor the application of the relevant legal provisions and to take the necessary steps for enforcement. In October 2024, the Italian authorities indicated to the Commission that the implementation of the procedure laid down in Ministerial Decree No 688/2023 of 24 May 2023 5 has ensured that former lettori had the right to reconstruct their career, in compliance with the obligations arising from EU and national legislation and the procedure has concluded with the payment of the sums due to former lettori. In March 2025, the Italian trade unions provided the Commission with recent information regarding the case, which the Commission has transmitted to the Italian authorities for their reaction. 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 June 2001, Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic, Case C-212/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:357. eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=oj:JOC_2001_227_R_0002_02 2 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 July 2006, Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic, Case C-119/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:489. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0119 3 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-519/23 4 Case C-519/23: Action brought on 10 August 2023, European Commission v Italian Republic, OJ C 338, 25.9.2023, p. 15 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023CN0519 5 https://www.mur.gov.it/sites/default/files/202306/Decreto%20Ministeriale%20n.%20688%20del%2024%20maggio%202023.pdf”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• 2025-03-12 “– Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution supporting a just transition and reconstruction in Syria today. The people of Syria have suffered for too long at the hands of a brutal dictator to have it replaced by an equally brutal regime. I acknowledge the suspension and revision of the sanctions regime, which – we must acknowledge – had little or no impact on Assad's reign and worsened the lives of the ordinary people of Syria, 90 % of whom now live in poverty. I look on with great dismay at the persecution and revenge killings of 1 225 civilians and members of the Alawite majority faith in recent days, and even greater dismay at the Commission's silence in the face of that killing. The silence of the European Union's chief diplomat on the slaughter of civilians – even if they were once protected by, or may even have supported, leaders that she doesn't like – is a failure on her part; one that lowers her and lowers the EU further on the world stage.”
• 2024-11-28 “– Mr President, I just wish to explain my vote on Georgia and why I voted against the resolution. Simply, I voted against the resolution because it bore no relation, in my view, with the statement of the long-term mission which was in place of the OSCE-ODIHR, but to which the European Parliament, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe also subscribed. Colleagues, in 2016 a Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation was agreed, and it was endorsed at that time by the Commission and since by the Parliament. Essentially, what it does is say that we need to be very careful about people who arrive in country for a very short period of time around election time. We put in an impartial mission for a long period of time that assesses the overall election during the whole period of the election and indeed looks at the treatment of essential freedoms around that. That mission was put in place with the agreement of everybody, and it came up with a statement. I happen to know the person who was in charge of that, but that is not why I agree with it: it is the principle. I also know those who put forward the resolution, but I just think we have to respect the processes, and there is always a danger that people who are going there for a very short period of time can have their heads turned by regimes, but there is equally a danger that they can have their heads turned by the opposition, and when faced with a conflict between short-term observers and a long-term mission, I have to side with the long-term mission. And for that reason I have no alternative – and reluctantly, given that many of my colleagues were involved – but to not support the resolution.”
• 2024-11-27 “E-002678/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Articles 1(3) and 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 1 do not provide any reporting obligations by Member States to the Commission. As a result, in 2022 no information was received on the non-application of the Directive to the projects referred to in the written question. 1 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1–21, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1–18.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “In the UK, a coalition of very divergent media has been established. Bbc, Sky news, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times which would take a very different approach philosophically and certainly to political coverage. But they've called for technical standards to be developed and for licensing frameworks. So it echoes a little bit what the jury report that was mentioned earlier have suggested. However, there's a bit of a debate, I think, even in the jury, as to whether that should be legislated for or this should evolve in the market and be allowed to evolve in the market in a yes or no scenario. Do the panelists think that we need to legislate for this, or we need to allow the market to to develop this itself? Maybe from the commission or maybe and perhaps our civil society representatives. Thank you, chair, for allowing me a second.”
  EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
• “Thank you very much, president. Um, I'd like to thank the committee for commissioning and the report report authors for conducting the analysis of such a key issue for the as the decarbonization of European industry and sectors such as heavy transport. As we all know, Europe is lagging behind in its green energy targets and in particular its green hydrogen targets. So low carbon hydrogen must be part of the solution for decarbonization. Um, however, therein lies my my concern. Um, as some previous speakers have indicated, um, while there was great hope, um, an immediate hope that hydrogen could play a very important role. That seems to be abating somewhat. And I suppose what I would like from the esteemed panel is an overview of where technology is at at the moment with regard to potential use cases for hydrogen, and where the technological development of it is at right now. Obviously, there was considerable hope that it would be used in industry, in transport, both in passenger vehicles like cars and also in heavier vehicles like buses and heavy goods vehicles, either in combustion engines or batteries or both. Um, however, that seems to be receding, at least in the case of passenger vehicles. Is that correct? I suppose my my question is more is the obstacle to the uptake of, of hydrogen and the increased use of hydrogen across Europe? Is that, um, is it regulatory? Um, or is it that the technology hasn't evolved quite as quickly as we had hoped? Um, so I very much like to get a little bit of clarity on that. Um, notwithstanding that the delegated act is a welcome step, and I look forward to hearing from the Commission on the initiatives it envisages to promote the production and import of low carbon hydrogen. Uh, for example, as part of the upcoming revision of the EU hydrogen strategy. Thank you very much.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “Thank you very much, president. Um, I'd like to thank the rapporteur and the Lib secretary for their work in this opinion and I suppose express my concern regarding the report is that we must be careful not to duplicate existing legislation. The GDPR and the AI act actually already set strong rights based frameworks for data protection and the use of high risk AI systems, including in the workplace. Therefore, any new rules must be coherent with these instruments and must not lead to overlap or to conflict. In that regard, we should acknowledge that there is a very limited appetite for entirely new legislation, particularly at a time when the focus across, I think all institutions is on simplification, implementation and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens as the AI act is still being rolled out. As the my colleague, DPP, um rapporteur pointed out, our priority should be to ensure clarity, coherence and effective enforcement of existing rules rather than creating parallel frameworks. That said, we cannot turn a blind eye to the risks. Algorithmic systems are already reshaping work and management, often in ways that lack transparency, reinforce equality and restrict meaningful oversight. We need to ensure that workers have clear rights to know how decisions are made, to contest outcomes, and to be protected against bias and surveillance. I will look to add amendments that emphasize the safeguarding of fundamental rights. That means protecting privacy, ensuring non-discrimination, and defending the principle. The technology must serve people, not control them. Ultimately, we need clear protections for individuals. Practical rules for employers and coherence across the EU's legal framework. Thank you president. And thanks again to the rapporteur.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Uh, thank you very much. Um, like my colleagues, I suppose, greatly welcome the initiative on on one level, but I have concerns on another. Um, obviously many of the projects that are funded from an Irish perspective are very necessary, and it's very welcome that they're being funded like the the Celtic interconnector, which will connect Ireland to France, uh, the North south interconnector, which will connect Ireland, uh, more closely into the the UK's energy supply. Um the interconnector between um and Wales is newly added to the list. Um and of course the silver mines pumped hydro um electric supply but are electric sorry energy storage. But I just wonder while it's very welcome that that that that France has adopted the energy policies that it has, um, you know, if it didn't, if it like Ireland never even looked at nuclear like other countries in Europe shut down its nuclear power plants. One wonders where we'd be. I suspect walking around the parliament building with candles and paraffin lamps in Strasbourg, and maybe even here, because so many countries are now dependent on French planning and French foresight, though welcome. France, of course, has its own ambitious plans to develop AI and to use much of that energy. And in through all this interconnection, it's it's very welcome. It's very necessary. But does it somehow incentivise the Irish sort of solution to an Irish problem? Oh, God, we won't even consider nuclear, but we'll import it in vast quantities and rely on other countries to develop their energy sectors, and so that we can fail to develop ours and somehow get away with it. So that's my concern that, you know, while it is welcome, countries do have to play their own role and do have to be mature in their energy responses and not just rely on importing it from other countries which have displayed a far greater degree of maturity. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “I would also like to take this opportunity to call upon the Irish presidency to make that a priority. The pursuit of that as a priority of its presidency, given Ireland's relative lateness. But nevertheless, it is to be welcomed that Ireland has finally ratified the the optional protocol looking at the European Disability Act. Is a landmark step. It's far from perfect, as our introductory speaker pointed out, but it is nevertheless a welcome step, given that we live through a time in which almost every aspect of our economy, and increasingly, our daily lives and society, are going online. In our digital, we shop online, manage finances online, organise our travel online what we eat online, access media online, and access essential public services increasingly online. In this context, the European Disability Act represents a step forward in ensuring that accessibility is upheld in practice and not just in principle, by establishing a common by establishing a common EU wide framework. The act ensures that key products and services such as smartphones, ticketing and check in machines, banking services and e-commerce platforms are designed accessibly. However, technical accessibility alone is not enough. Products that comply on paper but cannot connect seamlessly with assistive technologies still act as a barrier, still create exclusion. That is why interoperability is essential. It's welcome that the act requires compatibility with assistive technologies such as screen readers. Without such interoperability, accessibility becomes patchy at best and dependent on the goodwill of individual providers rather than guaranteed by design.”
  EU policy on accessibility of digital infrastructure
• “In the UK, a coalition of very divergent media has been established. Bbc, Sky news, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times which would take a very different approach philosophically and certainly to political coverage. But they've called for technical standards to be developed and for licensing frameworks. So it echoes a little bit what the jury report that was mentioned earlier have suggested. However, there's a bit of a debate, I think, even in the jury, as to whether that should be legislated for or this should evolve in the market and be allowed to evolve in the market in a yes or no scenario. Do the panelists think that we need to legislate for this, or we need to allow the market to to develop this itself? Maybe from the commission or maybe and perhaps our civil society representatives. Thank you, chair, for allowing me a second.”
  EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
• “Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.The microphone. Just a minute. Is that working? Yes. Thank you, Madam Vice President. Madam Commissioner, colleagues, at this time, when, um, instability and change are the only constants, I think it is vital that the European Union look across the world and try to reach out to countries with which it shares values and look to accentuate that which it shares, rather than accentuate differences. India has much in common with the European Union and its member states. It cherishes democracy. It cherishes rule of law it has done since its foundation. It also builds its future on education, trying to move forward, trying to build technology in that regard. With regard to the rule of law, it shares a common law legal system with at least one member state, namely my own. Um, but I think in looking to develop a future with India, it would be really foolhardy of us to lecture India on where it should position itself in the geopolitics of the world. India has always pursued a middle way. When there were revolutions and wars on its frontiers, it pursued a middle way. It will pursue its own course, whether we like it or not. The question is whether we can respect and value India as much as it deserves, as a trading partner to be respected and valued, not lecture and hector to it, but rather to respect it and try to move forward together and to accentuate that which we share rather than our differences. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.”
  EU-India relations
• “So I'm just wondering what we can do around that. Um, and then, uh, Doctor Winters, um, uh, um, proposals I found really interesting in particular, of course, this comparative, uh, the sums of money available to work in, in the AI developers compared to what the European Commission can offer. And, I mean, the AI office has done a remarkable job, you know, with, with these the numbers, the small, relatively small number of people available to it. And I think it's absolutely commendable. But equally, it is hugely important for the future of our democracy that they are resourced into the future. But then I just wanted to ask about what do you think about this, that the balance between the Commission's role and the Member States commission, the member states role in the AI act? Because obviously the member states, more than in GDPR, want to retain a degree of of power. Um, some member states very well equipped to do that. Many member states less well equipped in terms of expertise, in terms of, of of the budgetary resources. So I wonder if you just comment on that. Thank you very much. And thanks again for the opportunity to be here.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you very much, Vice President. Um, while there is much to welcome in the AI omnibus, uh, it also raises some considerable concerns. Um, I suppose in particular around the impact assessments or the lack thereof. While the Commission proposes to amend the AI act. Um. It does so without any impact assessment. Um, both with regard to the digital omnibus and the AI omnibus. Um, the um Corporate Europe Observatory have documented how, um, the various proposals contained therein mirror big tech lobbying demands. Article by article. Indeed, many members of the Parliament will have been approached in the past 12 months with these exact demands, and it is somewhat surprising to see them contained in black and white in proposals from the Commission. Um, it is also, it must be said, um, a response perhaps to to delays in um among member states in putting the um, the implementation machinery in place. But equally unfortunately, I think that does beg the question whether that delay in and of itself was because of regulatory inertia in member states or an inability to find the personnel, or whether that, in some instances, at least was a response to a lobbying exercise by big tech data companies. I ask this question not just because of its impact on, um, AI legislation in Europe, at a time when I suppose the necessity for safeguards has never been clearer to the populations that we serve here in this Parliament, and indeed, that the European Union serves more generally.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you very much. President. I wish to follow on from where my colleague Mr. Cassar finished. And that's with the lack of reciprocity of standards. And only two weeks ago, my colleague Maria Walsh pointed out a delegation from the Irish Farmers Association and the Irish Farmers Journal travelled to Brazil and published a damning report. What they found was that there were 12 prescription only antibiotics, which they purchased without any prescriptions, without even speaking the same language as the vendors. No database of antibiotic use whatsoever. No database of antibiotic sales whatsoever. The continued use of in-feed antibiotics, which are banned in the European Union. Little or no traceability of animals because they're not tagged until very soon before they're they're slaughtered and entered the food chain. If that wasn't bad enough the DG Sante produced a report just based on a trip to Brazil from May to June of 2024. Which concludes that There's the. Consequently, the Brazilian Department of Agriculture cannot guarantee the reliability of operators. Sworn statements on non-use of estradiol 17 beta in cattle, and the department is not in a position to reliably attest to operator compliance with the corresponding section in model. Eu health certificates. Now that's important because is estradiol 17 beta is a growth promoter, which is banned in the European Union because of its carcinogenic effect on humans. So how can we possibly talk about safeguard clauses which merely kick in if there's a competition distorting effect when there's a massive distortion between the standards that farmers in Europe are being expected to produce and that which Brazilian farmers are being expected to produce as chairman. I'm a little bit disappointed that this committee doesn't have more powers to delve into that that the committee has. But I do thank you for your time today in addressing those grievances.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much, president. Um, the risks posed to elections are well documented in EU observation missions. And you don't have to look outside of the European Union. We know the risks within the European Union as well. Um, but in the light of that, uh, the AI omnibus, as you mentioned, proposes to delay the watermarking of AI materials without differentiating, of course, between text images and, um, and videos. Uh, do you think that there is a differentiation to be made in terms of that, uh, in that regard? I mean, do you think that obviously it's harder technologically to, to, to water marker to mark text. But do you think images and videos pose more of a risk to elections? Do you think they should be prioritized in terms of watermarking, or do you think text is equally problematic? And then what specific legal changes would you like to see? And would they be to the high risk annex, which the commission is able to to to propose changes to, or would it be to the general purpose AI code of practice, which deals with democratic processes, albeit at a very sort of high level, rather than is more granular detail required in that regard?”
  Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
• “In the UK, a coalition of very divergent media has been established. Bbc, Sky news, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times which would take a very different approach philosophically and certainly to political coverage. But they've called for technical standards to be developed and for licensing frameworks. So it echoes a little bit what the jury report that was mentioned earlier have suggested. However, there's a bit of a debate, I think, even in the jury, as to whether that should be legislated for or this should evolve in the market and be allowed to evolve in the market in a yes or no scenario. Do the panelists think that we need to legislate for this, or we need to allow the market to to develop this itself? Maybe from the commission or maybe and perhaps our civil society representatives. Thank you, chair, for allowing me a second.”
  EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
• “Um, again, a really interesting presentation. I suppose it was interesting to hear that the threat that AI poses to democracy isn't just, um, misinformation, disinformation, etc.. But but this concentration of information. Um, in terms of, you know, before, if you googled something or if you used any search engine, you'd get 5 or 6 different responses, you know, with a link to what Lamont had to say about the New York Times, to say what the Guardian had to say, and you could choose your information source and sort of decide, well, what do you think is objectively true? Now you just get one response, and that is the truth. Um, which I think is very dangerous, that massive concentration of, of of power to inform people. But it also has the impact, of course, that none of those media organizations are being referred on people, so they're not in a position to in any way monetize their content. Some of them interestingly, Lamont has done a licensing agreement with, um, OpenAI, I understand, but many of them are doing licensing agreements, but they're the big beasts. All the smaller media operators are just falling away. And I noticed that Miss, Um Bender said that we, uh, Professor Bender said that we need to increase support for journalists. But how do you do that? I mean, every journalist can't be employed by the state or subsidized by the state.”
  EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
• “Thank you. Chair. I won't go back as far as the previous speaker, but, um, or the previous questioner. But, um, the idea of embedded journalism or embedded journalists has been with us for some time now. Um, and, um, you know, sometimes, particularly during war, the, the, the border between journalism and propaganda and disinformation isn't always clear. There doesn't seem wouldn't seem to me that there's much room for objectivity in a tank. And so, in view of that, I'm just wondering if the panel have any view on the council's recent decision to sanction German bloggers. Um, Thomas Rupert and Elena Lip and a Turkish media outlet, Alpha media, and its founder, Hussein Dogru. I'm just wondering. I appreciate why it's being done. They're not necessarily outlets that I would turn to for information, but is there a danger that we emulate what we seek to counter when we take such measures? Um, if we're, you know, because I would, at least for years, have expected measures sanctioning sanctioning journalists or people who claim to be journalists, but they are not. Is something that one might associate more with Russia than with the European Union.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you very much, colleagues. The suspension of the ICC chief prosecutor's email as a result of US sanctions last May sent alarm bells ringing around the globe, including, of course, in Brussels. Our vulnerability and reliance became immediately apparent where our data is stored, by whom it is hosted and where that company is headquartered are certainly key considerations. Us cloud companies control 70% of the European cloud market. Only 15% of the European market is controlled by European service providers. If large proportions of our data, even sometimes sensitive data, are hosted outside of our jurisdictional reach, how sovereign are European states and how sovereign is the European Union? If the technology that we as Europeans rely on is not under European democratic oversight and is at the mercy of foreign or commercial interests, how sovereign are we? Given the level of interdependence in the modern digital world, is it even possible to be fully sovereign? Can member states or the EU ever exert full control over a technological domain. These are all difficult questions that governments and the Commission have been grappling with since May. And Madam President, I look forward to your answers to those difficult questions in the upcoming act.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “But legislation is only the first step. So in that regard, I suppose I would have a couple of questions if it's an appropriate time for questions. And that is should the act perhaps go further? What is the the deadline for transposition and implementation of the European Accessibility Act has passed earlier this year on the 28th of June, 2025. Are you satisfied that it has been adequately transposed by Member States? Are you in communication with Member States regarding inadequate transposition? And how can we ensure that interoperability requirements keep pace with technological developments to ensure that assistive technologies continue to work seamlessly in order to ensure access to mainstream technologies as they evolve? And I suppose it is appropriate to recall, notwithstanding the fact that the that the Optional Protocol hasn't been ratified by the European Union. It is appropriate, I think, to recall the concerns voiced by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with disabilities with regard to the the limited scope of the European Accessibility Act, which includes the built environment only as a voluntary clause. It doesn't cover fully the area of transport and does not cover essential products such as household appliances in particular. And also the delays in the transposition is something that's been criticized by the the UN committee. So thank you very much, chair. And I look forward to the replies of our expert. Thank you.”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility
• “For how long, sir? Chair four. Thank you very much. So thank you very much. I very much welcome. Today's exchange of views. It and I'd like to thank Mrs. Plasencia Pereira for her presentation and also to thank the committee for convening this important discussion during what is now our third Disability Rights Week. Across the European Union, over 100 million people live with some form of disability. As members of the European Parliament, we must remain committed to ensuring that all persons with disabilities can live independent lives and realise their full potential. As members of the committee, we have a particular responsibility in that regard to ensure that we shape policies which determine persons with disabilities, are empowered to participate fully and equally in our digital society, including through full participation in the digital Single market. Today's exchange is also an opportunity to reflect on progress made under the UN convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities, which has been ratified by the EU and all of its member States. The convention remains a key framework for protecting and promoting the human rights of persons with disabilities. However, the Optional Protocol, which is of huge importance to actually giving teeth to the convention so that persons can can make complaints and bring deficiencies to the attention of the. The UN Committee has not been ratified by all Member States, nor has it been ratified by the Union itself. And I think this committee should call for that to happen.”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility
• “Thank you very much, Madam Vice President, I welcome the stated your stated aim of this digital simplification omnibus. Who could argue against simplification? We all want to reduce the regulatory burden. We all want to reduce overlapping and duplicative reporting requirements. We all want to increase regulatory uncertainty. Um, I particularly welcome your statement this evening that this was not about undermining our digital rule book. However, the reported statements of your interlocutor, your transatlantic interlocutor, belie that to a great extent. We do really need to avoid a Groucho Marx approach to regulation. These are my principles. But if you don't like them, I have others. These are our laws. But if you don't like them, we have others. In particular, the AI act. I wasn't here a lot. Many in this House have a very paternalistic approach to it. I don't. I wasn't here when it was passed only a year and a half ago. I didn't vote for it. You were. You did. So I want very clear explanations as to why it needs to be amended so soon. Leaving aside the stop the clock. But even on the stop the clock, I would like to know if we are to stop the clock on particular provisions. How do we know we won't have to stop the clock again under pressure from Big Tech? So the onus is on you to explain why we need to introduce these and what market surveillance has been done. Thank you very much.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the the speakers for their very cogent presentations. I would agree that while it's always tempted to tempting to throw our hands in the air, it's something that we simply can't afford to do for the future of our Societies. And I suppose in addition to the clear risk that I poses. And I just wonder, is there any thing that I offers us encountering that risk? Because, you know, one thing that I is quite good at, it seems to me, and there's a lot of dispute as to what is good at what is not good, at, what it can achieve, what it can't achieve. How much is is hype. Um, but is sifting through large amounts of data and I just wonder, what are the possibilities of of using AI to root out illegal content and to identify, because there's this vast explosion of information on the internet to identify, um, harmful patterns and to use it by state authorities to their benefit, to help counter the threats posed by. I know that might sound convoluted, but that's my question. Thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you very much. President I very much welcome this discussion. I obviously, like many people here, lament the risk that this poses to media pluralism and by extension democracy. But I suppose when I was growing up, there was a band who had an album called Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death. And isn't that really a large part of how social media have grown? Our media companies, generally tech companies, have grown to the extent that they have. People are willing to sacrifice almost anything for convenience, including privacy. They certainly want to get as much information as possible with as much ease as possible. The idea of having to go to a news agency and buy papers and actually go through them is now anathema to an entire generation, and I just don't really know philosophically what you can do about that. I mean, that that band that had the album Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death had a previous album called bedtime for democracy. And I suppose I'm kind of wondering what we do about this, or maybe there isn't a lot we can do about it, but it does seem that if you shrink media pluralism to one source of information, that's particularly dangerous when it comes to elections, and we're well accustomed to political parties courting the media and their own into elections.”
  EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
• “Thank you very much, chair. I'd just like to join with my colleagues. You've even raising the the risks of AI and media, the concentration of power in AI to media pluralism. And I'd just like to ask, in light of that, obviously, um, the, um, Miss Nicolai from the Commission. If there are any plans to revisit the the Copyright Directive from 2019, which contains data mining exemptions that are utilised by which are becoming increasingly controversial as they're utilised by AI companies. But copyright holders, including news media, say that they what's happening now was not envisaged at that time. And of course, their situation becomes even more precarious with AI because the report that you now get if you use A doesn't even contain a link to the original article, even though they have evidence that their work is being utilised in in the responses that AI is providing to queries on the internet. So are there plans to revisit that directive by the Commission?”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Doctor Nolan, you have recognized scientific experience on drugs. How would you bring this experience and And knowledge to bear if appointed Director General of the UDA. You have very extensive national experience as the executive director of the Irish Health Products Regulatory Agency, but are you aware of different national drugs related issues and approaches in other member states, and what international experience do you have? And lastly, you specialise in in health risks associated with drug use. With regard to the safety aspect of it and the security aspect of it, what is your vision and how are your courses of action? What courses of action would you think are most appropriate to combating rising drug use and consumption in Europe?”
  Cannabis consumption
• “Thank you very much, madam Vice-President. I very much welcome this debate. Ireland, which I are part of which I represent in this House, already has a gambling tax of 2% levy on all bets laid in Ireland and a 2% levy equally on online bets in Ireland. I have no problem with increasing that tax. I mean, clearly gambling is a major issue. It's an issue that's destroying particularly young lives as we see more and more young people becoming addicted to gambling. We know sports, stars, etc., telling their stories. And I mean, I think we should follow the policy of taxing things that are bad and seeking to reduce taxes and things that are good. So I have no problem with it whatsoever. My only question would be, if this is EU tax comes in, will that be as well as national taxes, or will it somehow be instead of national taxes, which I would have a problem with? So I would welcome clarification from the commissioner on that. But in principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing the gambling industry and taxing them heavily for the damage that they are causing in society.”
  Priorities of taxation policy in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Mr. President, for your latitude, Commissioner. Yes, of course we need to combat piracy in sports coverage. But equally, I think we need to be cognisant of what's driving it, and we need to be vigilant about the tendency to put all live sports behind a paywall. And we need to be vigilant about unscrupulous, unscrupulous operators. For example, Sky recently argued in an Irish court that there were under no obligation to tell their consumers when their contract was coming to an end and to tell them what new deals that they could avail of. Instead, they could roll over the contracts at existing prices without offering them new or lower prices. That, I believe is unacceptable. The court found it was unacceptable. And it did so based on EU law, which is hugely important to those who ask what EU law. Ever do for us with regard to sport? Though there is this tendency to put it all behind a paywall, I am old enough to remember Italia 90 and Euro 88, which gave Ireland huge confidence, brought people together in a way perhaps contributed as much to the Irish economic resurgence as any economic measures did. But that was when groups of people were able to watch it. Now, increasingly, all sport is put behind a paywall. That is simply not fair. It's simply not good. And it's particularly unfair in the context of sports, which are receiving considerable exchequer funding for their activities. Thank you very much.”
  Broadcasting of sports events
• “Thank you very much. Mr. president, colleagues, I am not here very long, but already I have the impression that this place operates like a bubble. I have listened to numerous speeches this week saying that the only thing that our citizens care about is defense. Colleagues, I do not believe for a moment that this Parliament will be judged on whether or not there are soldiers wearing the European Union insignia on their shoulder in five years time. The success or failure of this Parliament will be judged on whether or not we bring down energy prices in Europe, and whether or not we provide energy stability and security across Europe. And the same is true Commissioner of your commission. In my view, I do very much welcome the action plan that has been announced, though I clearly we need huge investment in our infrastructure. Clearly, we need to break the link between gas pricing and energy pricing, because that has resulted in energy prices remaining artificially high across Europe. But we cannot wait for grid infrastructure. We do need to look at innovative solutions. Everybody across Europe is talking about the benefits of AI. At the same time, the same people are saying that we cannot have data centres. Well, we cannot have it both ways. We do need to look at whether data centres can be used to stabilize our grid in the short term, while we wait for our grid to be enhanced. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you very much. President. Um, again, Commissioner, I welcome you and very much welcome your plan of the presentation of the European Affordable Housing Plan. Um, and what it contains a loosening of the rules around state aid to allow for more national funding and additional EU funding, as well as a discouragement of speculative investment. All of that is very welcome. Again, Commissioner, I welcome your balanced approach in in saying that, yes, Airbnbs are a problem, but we're not going to ban them completely. I'm from a country which has effectively banned them completely, has no plan whatsoever on enforcing it. And I come from a county within that country that is very reliant on tourism, but does not have hotel beds for a variety of reasons that I do not intend to go into. So it is a matter of of balance. Um, we have failed, though, as, as, as an Irish government. And we are not alone in that. It seems that a pan European problem to build houses. Instead we have built an edifice of state control of agencies, of regulators, etc., which soak up political energy, soak up exchequer capital, but do not actually deliver housing for our people. That is a huge problem that needs to be tackled as well.”
  EU regulation of short-term rentals
• “Thank you very much. Um, chair. Um, the electricity integration package offers a roadmap or a roadmap to a more stable, affordable and secure electricity market not only for the EU, but also, as we've heard, for our neighbours in the contracting parties of the European Energy Community. The package offers a practical framework to support the development of competitive, transparent and well regulated electricity markets in facilitating the free flow of electricity across borders. It encourages competition and establishes a clear legal basis for cost reflective tariffs. In doing so, it promotes greater efficiency and helps stabilize prices. So Ireland's experience with electricity offers a useful lesson and indeed is a is almost a mirror of the development of the Irish state. One of the first things that the Irish state did was to develop energy self-sufficiency in the construction of the Shannon scheme in Ardnacrusha Power Station, which when constructed, was the biggest hydroelectric station in Europe. From then, we've navigated a transition from isolation to interconnection from the single electricity market with Northern Ireland to our interconnection plans with continental Europe. Ireland has shown that integration can enhance both energy security and affordability. However, that does not mean that it has been entirely successful in recent years. Obviously, there's been a huge emphasis across Europe and renewables. The Atlantic coast of Ireland are rather 40 to 50km off the Atlantic coast of Ireland offers huge potential for floating offshore energy potential, which has been recognised by successive Irish governments but not harnessed potential, which has been talked about by successive Irish governments.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you, Mr. President. I greatly welcome the emphasis on cybersecurity, in particular cybersecurity in healthcare settings and healthcare systems. Uh, given that the largest, uh, cyberattack are known, cyberattack, at least against a health service computer system was against the Irish national one, the HSC in 2021. The cost hundreds of millions of euros, and it was perpetrated or reportedly perpetrated by a group based in Russia. Um, another issue, I suppose, which we share in Ireland is a concern for subsea infrastructure, uh, cables, etc.. Um, obviously, uh, Denmark, um, uh, was the the locus of an attack on Nord Stream, uh, back in 2020, um, tweeted a couple of years ago. Um, but I just wonder, um, do we know? I understand the investigation concluded it was sabotaged, but do we know if that sabotage was believed to be directed by a state actor? And if so, which? And secondly, there's a lot of discussion around cooperation and greater cooperation with NATO. Um, uh, in the Irish context, of course, Ireland is not a member and is a neutral state, but a greater cooperation would lead to, um, a deterrent of attacks in, um, uh, of its subsidy infrastructure cables in particular. Um, has membership of NATO helped the investigation in any way or acted as a deterrent in any way against attacks of subsea infrastructure, such as cables and or gas pipelines in the Danish example in the Danish context. Thank you.”
  Relations with NATO
• “President, colleagues, the report is very clear about what's at stake. The EU's strategic dependencies in semiconductors and cloud infrastructure and critical minerals are not just abstract risks, they hinder our ability to be relevant in the AI economy, and we need to address them or fall behind. We need to be relevant in this age, as we have been in previous ages, but we also need to be relevant. I believe, in international governance of AI, in particular the existential risk that it could pose. I wish to draw this House's attention to something that happened last week, and that was in a maybe overly heralded trip, that one of the concrete results was that President Trump and President XI have agreed to hold formal dialogues on AI safety, on guardrails for the most powerful AI systems. And very recently, we saw where these systems are heading with the anthropic meta model, which exposed critical vulnerabilities in our cybersecurity infrastructure, or at least we believe it does. We haven't really seen it, very much of it at this side of the Atlantic. And that too, begs questions that need to be answered. But the question and the big question is where is Europe in this governance conversation? Just as we can't allow ourselves to fall behind in terms of dependencies, we cannot also be irrelevant to the international discussion on this. We need to reach out to similarly minded allies like Canada, South Korea, Japan, and the United Kingdom to work together to develop international standards, not just standards determined by two poles of a bipolar world, but rather that reflect European values and are relevant to the world in which we all live. Thank you very much.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “(16:43:09 – 16:45:11): take the floor? Yes. Thank you, president. Mister Neumann, I heard you say during your presentation that the, that the Hamas attacks in October 7 galvanized, extremism. And I suppose I'm just wondering to what extent the response to the Hamas attacks in Gaza and particularly Gaza, but also, I suppose, when the eyes of the world were on Gaza, the uptick in settler violence in, in the West Bank has inspired extremism in Europe, in particular, but I suppose across the Western world. And to what extent Europe's response or lack of response to that has has inspired extremism. I'm not in any way suggesting that any of this justifies extremism. I mean, it clearly doesn't, and terrorism is unjustifiable and despicable. But I'm just wondering to what extent it's being inspired by that, response, because it would seem to me that that might be something that was desired by the perpetrators of the those, awful attacks on the, October 7? And lastly, the more recent attacks by, The United States and and, Israel in in in against Iran. I mean, to what extent is that inspiring extremism and the lack of response from the European Union? Because it does create an impression rightly or wrongly that Muslim lives in The Middle East are worth a lot less than other lives in other parts of the world or even in The Middle East. So I'm just wondering how is all of that impacting upon extremism and the growth of extremism in this, yeah, where these movements are at now. These and I appreciate that they're quite disparate and because they're disparate harder to to monitor. Thank you.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “Thank you very much, chair. Um. Uh, thank you very much for the presentation. Uh, Mr. Uvarovsky, um, like previous colleagues, I'd like to congratulate you on your, um, successful, uh, mandate. Until now. Um, you mentioned, um, the different role that, um, that you have with regard to AI to to that which you have with regard to data protection, in particular, the role of market surveillance authority. Um, I suppose my question is, how do you interact with and how do you anticipate that you will interact with national market surveillance authorities? And, um, while it's quite clear who the market surveillance authority is at a union level, it's, um, still being determined at a national level. So could you give a brief outline of, of the state of play of member states across the union? Um, whether they their market surveillance authority that they've nominated is the same as the in the data, the dpa's that you're already in contact with, or whether it's an entirely different body and whether all member states have already nominated with their market surveillance authority, um, is going to be. And secondly, um, you mentioned the regulatory sandboxes, which is another very important function. Um, the the difficulties that you're encountering, uh, in setting that up with regard to human, um, um, capital and who's going to, to manage these that, you know, um, it is very, very specialist. Um, have you encountered much demand from the industry at for a regulatory sandbox for testing within that sort of, uh, sandbox? Bucks as a union level. And secondly, similarly to my first question, if you have time, can you outline what member states are doing in that area? Because obviously there is a discrepancy or at least a difference of approach and the difference, the difficulties that you're encountering will be encountered by member States as well. And in particular, I suppose, smaller member states, given the the, the highly specialised nature of the personnel required.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “But nothing has been done and it is a shame that when this interconnectivity is is achieved from Ireland to the continent, most of the electricity that will flow will flow towards Ireland rather than from Ireland. Meeting some of the renewable targets in Europe is within our reach, but it is something that the governments, successive governments in Ireland now have done nothing to bring about in 2020. The government came to power saying that we would have five gigawatts of offshore energy by 2030. Midway through their term, when they were unable to determine how we were going to meet our renewable targets elsewhere, they increased that to seven. The same government was re-elected essentially in last November, and they've increased that target to nine gigawatts by 2030. Meanwhile, doing absolutely nothing to achieve that goal. That is, it marks a failure not just for Ireland but for Europe. And I would encourage the commission, a new chair, in your communications with the Irish government, to tell them to reduce the rhetoric and start acting on Ireland's energy potential so that we can play our part in the ambitious energy integration package? Thank you.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “But to ask what precedent this sets for the European Union and for its ability to regulate. Is our regulation only now going to stand until such time as powerful lobby groups are indeed powerful member states from outside of the European Union question the benefit of that regulation to them rather than to our citizens. Um, I think I can go into specifics in particular around AI literacy. Uh, What exactly is this is in response to what impact assessment has been carried out, and that with regard to the requirement to register an opt out, if if a developer is saying that they are not covered by the high risk sector. Uh, what what, um, impact assessment has been carried out to the extent that one has been carried out, it appears that it's costing companies in the region of over little over €100 per company. Now, €100 is a lot of money when it's multiplied by the number of companies involved. But it's a relatively small in the context of the sums of money, uh, which are routinely discussed, uh, with regard to the, um, that the funding that these developers are obtaining. So that's my questions for now. And thank you, Vice President.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “What would be required for the prohibition to kick in would be full nudity? I don't believe that is the ban that people are seeking. I don't believe it's a ban that will actually be effective insofar as it is a ban. If it is one with an open instruction on how to circumvent it. For those companies that wish to monetize this activity. And clearly, there are economic actors, albeit a small number, and on the fringes who do wish to monetize this. And we can also, of course, look at what other jurisdictions are doing. Only last week in the United Kingdom, the UK's um, a ban was promulgated which went much further in reference to all or part of a person's exposed genitals, buttocks or breasts. That is important because it prevents the circumvention of it by just, you know, putting in a token, as I say, bull's eye symbol, star, etc.. So we now have the opportunity in this trilogue to set a standard that actually protects women and children. I would urge colleagues to hold the line on a broad and atomically precise definition, not because we want to be difficult, not because we want to stop progress, not because we want to stop economic activity, but because the victims of this behavior deserve nothing less. And we need to reduce the number of victims in future, not provide an instruction to tech companies on how to carry on regardless. Thank you.”
  Regulation of pornography in the EU
• “Thank you very much, chair. Across political groups, across across institutions, legislators looked at the scale of non-consensual sexual imagery. At what tools like Rock spicy mode. But it's important to say that it's not just about rock spicy mode. There are many other new defiers out there. We looked at what they were doing to women and girls right now, and decided that this was a moment to act. I think that must be acknowledged. It's a testament to what the council and the Parliament and groups across the political spectrum in this Parliament, that when the opportunity arose, it was taken for many groups in the Parliament, including my own. Securing a ban on notification and undressing applications is a key negotiated outcome that is sought from the AI omnibus. Um, we fought for it because, um, non-consensual intimate imagery is a systemic gendered harm being industrialized by AI. But I think we have to be honest about where negotiations currently stand. I am worried not about whether we will get a ban. We will, but I'm worried about whether the ban will actually do what we need it to do. Under one version of the text currently on the table, it states the prohibition should be limited to realistic depictions of exposed intimate parts. In particular, the genitals, pubic area, anus, fully exposed buttocks, or fully exposed female breasts, including nipples and areolae. So with this wording, placing a star or a bull's eye over a young person's or even an old person, any person's genitals would be sufficient to take the image outside of the scope of the prohibition.”
  Regulation of pornography in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Chairman. I would just like to refer to the speech last week by Professor Draghi where he referred to the GDPR and in particular what he describes as the heavy gold plating by Member States. I think that's been referred to by previous speakers including Mister Voss. This difference of approach between Member States, yet the Omnibus specifically states that the initiative builds on existing rules and does not alter the division of competences between the EU and the national level. But if that division of competences is part of the problem, could I ask why is it not being addressed? That's the first question that I would have. The second one is around the AI Act. I am in my first mandate and perhaps my last, but that's for the voters to determine. Unlike many of my colleagues, I wasn't around when the AI Act was being legislated as recently as 2024 and I just can't think of too many more examples of a law which is made in 2024 which is the subject of such extensive lobbying and is now proposed to be amended so quickly before parts of it have even come into effect. I'm wondering, does that mean Draghi backs up his assertions with regards to the GDPR with academic studies, yet there's nothing really to back up the assertions with regard to the AI Act? So I just wonder, is there a danger that that's purely in response to the extensive lobbying that has happened and if so, does that set a precedent for other regulation by the European Union in other areas? Under our Chairman, I was part of a delegation that visited US Capitol Hill last week and I personally came away with the impression that it's not so much that AI and GDPR are viewed as areas that shouldn't be the subject of legislation but rather they're areas that cannot be the subject of legislation because of the power of some of the big corporations. I would just worry if that is being imported here. The last question I would have is with regard to AI in particular. We're very heavily reliant on on crystal blowers and I just wonder if it is being reopened, will we look at increasing the protection for whistleblowers? Because I noticed that in the House of Commons, and obviously they're no longer members of the European Union, but the fines that are being levied on Sarah Williams in response to her book have been discussed. I just wonder if that sort of sets a danger of a chilling effect on whistleblowers in which we're so dependent for information as to what's actually happening in the realm of the AI developers. Thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence