Tomáš KUBÍN

Policy topics Tomáš KUBÍN is active on

What Tomáš KUBÍN has said (16)

• “Try to yes now dear chair dear colleagues I would like to thank the report there and shadow report there for their work. The proposal for non com nonfinancial commercial estate statistic regulation has good intentions as madam rapportia said to fill existing statistical gaps in this area to have more data for fiscal monetary and macro potential purposes and ultimately to safeguard financial stability. On the other hand the commission council and this house dedicated this mandate to simplification and I do not think that the current draft reports goes in that direction. We tablet ten amendments aimed at alleviating the administrative burden and making the proposal more workable and pragmatic unfortunately none of our amendments were taken on board that's the reality. Nevertheless we could see that the most amendments follow simplification logic and approach the issue in realistic manner despite being tabled by groups with often diverging options. Second compromise text drafted by the rapporteur was circulated last week despite some improvements we still have concerns specifically we find references to social housing in article five problematic as it is already a topic of a pilot study and it is not always known beforehand that the construction project will become social housing. The draft report includes indicators on rental yield indices and vacancy rates even though the commission proposal itself excludes them due to limited availability of data sources and and sufficient quality of statistics quote. Finally we think that derogation possibility for member states should be longer than the proposed four years to give national statistical institutes more time to adapt so that's all I hope that during the next meetings we can find a reasonable compromise that will be more in line with the simplification agenda thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(15:36:14 – 15:37:13): Thank you. I would like to thank mister Haji Pantella for a very well prepared report. I believe that we can all agree that we have, here legitimate objectives and that sharing, value added tax information at EU level is worth it. Now we just need to set specific conditions for this to happen. I believe that most, shadow rapporteurs believe that we need to focus on the investigation purposes. We presented our own amendments that, consider the, activities of Olaf and the protection the protection of the private data. I would like to thank again to the rapporteur, and I believe that we will finalize this work.”
  VAT harmonisation
• “Mr. chair. Colleagues. Mr. Commissioner, it's good to admit one's mistakes and make them good. The simplification in that sense goes in the right direction. But the Commission was only forced to do that step when possibly the farmers who went to the streets and protested shouted loud enough. But it's not about the commission. Only the member states were not prepared to proper dialogue. Farmers were literally ignored out of the debates in my country, in the Czech Republic. The ministry has prepared a strategy, but nobody ever met the farmers representatives, despite of them having a lot to say. They then prepared their own document in parallel. This is not the right way. That's why it's good that the agri committee had as a duty to meet the farmers, and to work on them and to consult them. The member States have to be obliged to include all stakeholders, including professional organisations, including those who are concerned, into the final text. There is one more step that needs to be done. They need to have the duty to consult while transposing it. That will make us listen to those concerned, and not just to our fellow office workers. I would like to thank Mr. Rodriguez. The debate was really constructive and brought us quite well.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “(15:48:29 – 15:49:11): I'd like to repeat 2 things. First of all, the parliament, through this directive or its original wording, has dealt with fifth 15 years ago. That's a long time. And even though I've mentioned it's not a binding directive and it is up to the council, it is a very important topic for us. And it is indicating what we may expect in terms of other behavioral taxes. So we need to find a balance in this trilemma, tax revenues, health of our people, and single market. It's not”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you. Well, what we are facing here is the A largest ever change to the European budget, and we don't want to then leave out any of the important points here. For instance, how can we finance Ukraine and the military funds there? Doesn't there don't seem to be any other resources. We can only then cover the funding requirements that we have by then cutting agricultural funding. That's something that needs to be done. As we've seen by then, merging funds. We've seen the comparison that comparisons aren't as possible as they were in the past, but we've seen here that agricultural agricultural spending needs to be reduced by 20% and subsidies need to be brought down and that farmers will only get half of the support they're getting at the moment. There are going to be different measures put in place, though, to soften the blow. For instance, only 10% of the fund can be used for agriculture. There will be reserves, then other funds will be restructured that will become possible. These different things to soften the blows won't bring about any success. There's no new money coming into the system. The cake will always be smaller than it has to be divided up. And all of these measures are being targeted against farmers. Member states are then meant to set up a super agency to coordinate all these payments. That then creates bureaucracy. Who is this going to benefit? Definitely not the farmers. That's why this proposal is unacceptable. And this is all going to then be subject to this war mania that we have, and it's our farmers that will suffer now. Yana Mikhailova, who is representing Clara Dostalova.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I will speak Czech. Commissioner. You promised a reasonable path, but you haven't done that. What you've shown is what we refer to as whitewashing. Many things have been already mentioned, but I would like to mention two specific things from the proposal. First, Limitation of direct payments. That's not fair. And not. Not well drafted because the figures that appear there are not evidence based. They do not respect the structure of agriculture in member states only in the Czech Republic. This will have a negative impact on thousands of farmers. Then article six, paragraph six, it speaks about removing support from farmers in the pension age. One of my neighbors in the village where I live, she works 24 over seven. She will. She employs four people and she will reach the retirement age in five years. But what you are saying is that there's only support for her until 2032. So are you saying she will not receive any more support after that? That's absurd.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you. Chair. First of all, let me extend my thanks to the rapporteur for a top quality report. Uh, this draft responses to a strong issue for the for the farmers. There are strong buyers who who operate through alliances and supranational structures, whereas farmers are limited by the national jurisdictions. Rules must be enforceable across the EU even if there are national rules. This text is positive, and it strengthens the cooperation among the national bodies and allows for coordinated approach to large cross-border cases. At the same time, we must make sure that this framework doesn't mean a shift of competences from the national bodies to the European Commission. Cooperation must be efficient, but it must not mean a centralisation of enforcement nor create new bureaucratic layers. Let me remind also also that a better cooperation in the chain across the chain will require a debate on better rules for these chains, not only about enforcement. And also it seems that across the political spectrum, we all share the same opinion. This is the unity in diversity.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “It's a little bit. You will you will follow later. I was surprised, I admit I will speak in Czech. Thank you. I want it to be specific on the safeguard clause, and I won't ask any specific questions, but they will follow from what I'm gonna say, these this clause is to guarantee to farmers that they will not be subjected to illicit competition. But we still have many concerns. The proposal is not based on proper analysis. There is no impact assessment of regional impact. It's just blindfolded legislation. The monitoring system is too weak. Commission is to report only twice a week or twice a year, which is very difficult for industries that are price sensitive, such as beef or poultry. Farmers cannot wait for six months for the commission to notice a market shakeup and also proving that a cause between the agreement and the, the price change is going to be very clumsy and lengthy. And also, member states will have very little say in this if we want to safeguard mechanism, it needs to be fast, transparent and really protective. Not only symbolic. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, dear colleagues. Speaking about simplification of the cap today, I believe we should take a glance backwards. Its rules began to be applied in 2023 and 2024. We adjusted them for the first time. It's now 2025. We're adjusting again. The next rounds are being prepared. Evidently, the original setup was too complicated, too far away from reality, from our farmers. I will not list everything that the rapporteur has listed. The specific um, relief, um, less controls, more subsidies, more supports, options for one time subsidies. These are some of the things that will come into force straight away and thank be to God for that. But let's ask a very simple question why are we only getting now to all of these adjustments, and why is it only step by step? Why do we adopt a complicated system, and then we try to adjust it so that it works? It just doesn't work this way, does it? The answer is simple. We don't listen enough to those people whom we're supposed to be helping. We're only drafting things at a table somewhere far away. The effect is straightforward people will have easier lives, and that's to be appreciated. But with a new cap, we should not be applying the same old system. The rules must work from the get go. We must not keep waiting to see what happens, and then maybe readjust or reevaluate. Fix and simplify. Things just can't work that way. More common sense, more listening to each other. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you chair. I would like to thank all speakers for valuable contributions, which will be very useful for my work as rapporteur and will help me and others in the group to draft a balanced report for the committee. And I would like to also thank to for the setup of the discussion, because it's a very broad spectrum of opinions, which some of them I can agree or some of them are disagree, but it's a matter of, uh, future compromises and balance and so on. Uh, so let me now ask some questions. Uh, I have listened very carefully. What you what what was said and, there are some open things which I would like to know. First, I would like to ask Professor Mosconi. You spoke about the inflation, but what is the effect of the tax differentiation on inflation in tax revenue? Because it's very important topic in the case of tobacco taxation. Will it be useful or is it useful? And does it work on consumption patterns. That's very I think it's very special topic. But anyway I would like to know your answer. And if so how does that influence the health outcomes? My second question is on the madam from tobacco representative.”
  Smoking regulation
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll speak in Czech language. The directive was adopted in 2003, and taking into account the technological development, it is obsolete and it causes problems in practice. Therefore, it is necessary to accommodate it so that it corresponds to existing needs and challenges. However, in a situation when our households and businesses face high energy prices, any increase in taxes is not acceptable. We have to bear in mind that the energy mix is different across member states. In many states, they rely on gas, such as one of the important parts of the total energy mix. So inappropriate taxation in these countries could increase taxes without having any alternatives. In this context, we cannot forget that, for example, nuclear power should deserve better Taxes. We should also pay attention to sectors which are burdened a lot. Perhaps we could reduce taxes in agriculture, but that we do not consider. Correct. And we cannot tax burden energy companies. Increasing taxes on fuels. Based on CO2 emissions will make energies more expensive. Areas such as. Chemical industry. Food processing will cause further disadvantages. And we. Really want competitiveness and that would only put it in danger. So the main question is not about whether we want to modernize the regulation or other approaches, But how do we go about it? Tax tools need to be set in such a way. Such a way to take into account the structure of economy of individual member States. Otherwise, it would have a negative impact on employment prices and also trust in the European policy. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. Chair. Allowing me to speak in my language. It means in Czech. Colleagues, the target of the revision is to simplify Common Agricultural policy policy. However, often the proposals of the Commission are at odds with reality. So we have amendments that should decrease administrative burden and increase functionality. There are certain topics, such as to cancel the gag condition one and five, because the application is inflexible and unsuitable for local conditions. Protection of soil can be ensured by existing rules and regarding the ecological farms, their certification should be sufficient to fulfill the conditions without duplicity. Double checks. This should be better also for mixed farms in the ecological part of their production. Then second, let's delete the articles for new mechanisms of crisis payments. Their aim is legitimate and it is a good intention, but as it is, it only brings new administrative burden and unclarity in terms of control. And we should also delete the article for the new management of interoperability. Interoperability. Simplification should not introduce new structures and new bureaucracy, and any change in the national strategic plans should and have to be consulted with agricultural organizations. This process should be always transparently published. Farmers have long been saying that they have concerns about decisions from from above, without dialogue. If we have consultations in the process itself, it will improve transparency. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “And I'm happy that you are with us here, because I think that what Eurostat is giving us, so to say, it's a one of the most important, uh, thing with on which rely our work as, uh. So, uh, to the questions, uh, Eurostat is shifting to multi-source model to reduce business burdens first on business to government data. Contractual bans often block national offices from using private sources. What EU legislation is needed to move from voluntary deals to mandatory framework? That is the question number one. And the second is more to the core. And it's about the resources as as ever. The draft for the new ESA regulation significantly expands reporting requirements with new and transmission tables, while national accounts are top priority. We cannot ignore that. Several resource crises hitting national offices. It's like that many countries are cutting staff by as much as 20%, but the list of demands only grows. It cannot be longer assumed that the resources will always be found with how we say in the Czech Republic. Finally, you proposed merging statistics to cut the red tape. Very popular. Uh, think red tape is everywhere in our we deal with, uh, which sectors will see reduced duplicate reporting by 2027? How does Eurostat plan to prioritise which new data is truly necessary? More importantly, are you ready to stop old tasks that no longer have value to make room for these new burdens?”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Madam chair. Mr. Vice President, when it comes to crypto assets, this is a massive thing in the financial market and there is no one solution to the regulation. And I do understand that your mandate is to look at the market evolution critically and make warnings when necessary. According to reports from the ECB, These crypto coins are covered by Europeans. American dollars might also be affected. Perhaps digital euros might be the solution. So my question is how might this be? Still the contribution of price policy. Instead of looking at this only as a tool which serves legislation, making purposes or perhaps also to a little bit affected the coins. Thank you.”
  Regulation of crypto
• “Uh, I know that that the council conclusions from 2020 ask for clear and harmonized definitions for tobacco products. And I understand that inconsistent definitions can create legal disputes and undermine the functioning of the EU single market as it happened, for example, for the definition of, uh, of a cigarette being defined as a role capable of being smoked as is and so on, it was really not sufficient enough. Uh, so I know that in the media that the industry is, uh. Very often mentioning the topic of the definition of the categories. So after according to your opinion, uh, do you think that the categories are, uh, defined now, uh, better and or successful? And will it avoid further confusion? Are there meaningful? And uh, at the end the third question is another question, but it is uh, more or less, uh, for the commission. We are speaking about the harmonizing of the taxation, but we will need to harmonize also the cooperation between the EU and national authorities with a view to effectively protecting the legal market and securing those tax revenues. Thank you very much.”
  Smoking regulation
• “(15:40:23 – 15:43:42): So Thank you, madam chair, colleagues. Since the last debate that we had about this topic, we negotiated very intensely. Mid April, we received 335 amendments, and I would like to thank everyone for sending them to me. It shows that these 2 directives, 1 technical and 1 more factual, are very important even though they're not binding, so they're more consultative. The first compromise text that we presented. We tried to reflect the varied opinions. We also used all 6 political groups' amendments. We also, presented a better definition for the tobacco product, the indexation of the price level, transitional periods, and also the minimum rates for certain tobacco products. So if we have new tobacco rates for new products, that's that was difficult because we had very contradictory tendencies in the amendments. Somebody wanted a higher level, somebody wanted a lower level, etcetera. So to find a compromise in the rates, I really read through all the amendments, and that is why the rate that I proposed is basically an arithmetic average. The explanatory statement explains that if we raise the minimums rates, we have to be very careful. Otherwise, we could distort the market and maybe provide motivation to illegal trading. And we should also take a look at what taxation what influence taxation can have on public health. The first meeting with Shadow Rapides happened last week in Strasbourg. I would like to thank all 3 colleagues who came. The meeting actually was after a very long vote in the plenary, so I really thank you for coming if even after such a long vote. And I believe that we have find found the main pillars of the text. And this week, we will have a technical meeting. And in May, during the plenary week, we will have, hopefully, the last shadows meeting. I would like to thank once more to all colleagues who participate in providing input into this text. And for me, it is not important who presents it, which political group, but I believe that what is important to find a compromise that is acceptable for the whole European parliament. Thank you.”
  Smoking regulation