Christian EHLER

Policy topics Christian EHLER is active on

What Christian EHLER has said (80)

• 2026-07-14 “Thank you very much. Welcome to the Parliament. I think the bad news is that we can spare you in terms of that, having that you have 100 days or something like that, you're thrown in the midst of everything. I mean, if we would follow for the moment your logic, the question is what are the deliveries for that? And if we look to the electrification agenda, I mean, we see due to our analysis that the 2030 targets for hydrogen grids and wind basically are becoming an unreachable goal. So in a way, what is actually delivered on the electricity story and that is twofold. We we are worried about, um, that we had been completely falling short on the commission's ambition on hydrogen because I mean, you can have electricity, how much you want for a steel company for a lot of production companies in Europe, it's decisive whether you have electricity and hydrogen. So in a way, how does that fit together? And I would just like to ask you, I mean, given that there has been a very ideological point of view on green hydrogen so far and in general also on low carbon hydrogen, how are you going to change? Because the commission proposal is missed by more than 50%. We simply don't have hydrogen. So the electrification story is in question. And then I would like to add, but for the moment, I stop to salute the rule of the president with a question on the methane.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• 2026-07-14 “Two short questions. I mean, during the last Energy Council meeting on the 26th of June, a total number of 70 member states have raised serious concerns about the implementation of the methane emission regulation. I don't want to get into detail, but I think that will be reflected. But what is your answer to that? Simply because the methane regulation has also implications on hydrogen and the ability, for example, Algeria to excavate um and produce hydrogen. Um, second question on the permitting part, um you are referring to to speed up, but the permitting part of the grid package does covers a few regulations. But for example, if you go through water, you could perhaps with the permitting part, if the bird is sitting on your wire, you're not because we don't touch the bird directive. So isn't it that we have to fix that dilemma, um within the vertical, um omnibus, the envy omnibus.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2026-01-14 “P-000126/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is tracking the implementation of the Clean Industrial Deal 1 . The evolution of the key performance indicators (KPIs) and the achievement of related targets and objectives set out in the Clean Industrial Deal are monitored as part of the Annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report and the online Single Market and Competitiveness Scoreboard. The Annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report informs policy discussions with the Council, the European Parliament and Member States, including on potential further actions necessary to reach Single Market and competitiveness objectives. All KPIs covered in the Clean Industrial Deal are taken up in this annual reporting process. Furthermore, an overview of the implementation of the initiatives announced in the Clean Industrial Deal is given in the Communication of 2 July 2025 on ‘Delivering on the Clean Industrial Deal I’ 2 and more recently, in Annex 2 of the Staff Working Document accompanying the 2026 edition of the Annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report 3 . The 2026 Annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report and the Scoreboard 4 include the latest state of play of each KPI of the Clean Industrial Deal. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0085. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0378. 3 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/2026-annual-single-market-and-competitivenessreport_en. 4 https://single-market-scoreboard.ec.europa.eu/.”
  EU Competition policy · EU Single Market harmonisation · EU industrial funding
• 2025-10-10 “P-003992/2025 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) is an independent EU body which has a Governing Board (GB) providing strategic guidance. The EIT sets out the rights and obligations of the EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) by means of partnership and grant agreements. It supervises the KICs through quality control, monitoring and evaluations 1 , while leaving them room to design their actions in a bottom-up way. The KICs integrate the knowledge triangle connecting education, research and business. Entrepreneurial education and skills development are critical drivers of innovation, and a catalyst for key industrial sectors, and EU policies, to which the KICs are fully aligned: energy, climate, digital, raw materials, manufacturing, urban mobility, food, health, culture and creativity and water, marine and maritime. The Commission designs and implements Horizon Europe collegially, in full alignment with all EU priorities. The Commission keeps the EIT closely aligned with EU policy developments so that the KICs contribute to EU priorities, such as the Union of Skills 2 , the Startup and Scaleup Strategy 3 , the Industrial Alliances 4 and the New European Bauhaus 5 . The Commission supports the KICs to set up Policy Advisory Boards which provide a feedback loop with Commission services. The mid-term evaluation of Horizon Europe has assessed the KICs’ performance positively 6 . In line with the EIT Regulation 7 , the EIT GB has submitted its contribution on the Strategic Innovation Agenda 8 . The Commission will take it into account for the review of the Commission’s proposal of the EIT legal framework, due by 31 December 2026 9 . It is in this context that the Commission will reassess the provisions concerning the KICs. It is a prerogative of the Commission to decide upon its internal organisation in order to 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0819, Article 6(c). 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0090. 3 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/2f76a0df-b09b-47c2-949c800c30e4c530_en. 4 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/industrial-alliances_en. 5 https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/index_en. 6 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/support-policy-making/shaping-eu-research-andinnovation-policy/evaluation-impact-assessment-and-monitoring/horizon-europe-programme-analysis_en, see especially the leverage effect of KICs. 7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0819, Article 4(4) of the EIT Regulation. 8 https://www.eit.europa.eu/sites/default/files/202507/EIT%20Strategic%20Vision%20%28with%20annexes%29%20July%202025%201.pdf. 9 Article 26 ‘Review’, EIT Regulation: ‘By 31 December 2026, the Commission shall, on the basis of the results of the evaluations referred to in Article 20(2) and (3), submit, where appropriate, any proposals for amendments to this Regulation which it considers to be necessary, in particular in relation to the EIT’s mission and objectives set out in Article 3 and with a view to extending the EIT’s budget beyond the period specified in Articles 3 and 21 in accordance with the relevant Union framework programme for research and innovation’.”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU · Research priorities within the EU
• 2025-07-23 “E-003055/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) 1 seeks to establish an investment capacity to bolster European competitiveness in technologies and strategic sectors critical to the EU competitiveness. Efficient processes, input from relevant stakeholders, and a solid governance structure will be key to its success. The Commission will ensure effective management and accountability of the ECF, vis-à-vis the budgetary authority, making use of its prerogatives as regards its internal working methods and procedures. In particular, the leadership of the ECF and the participation of the various Directorates-General equipped with the relevant expertise will be confirmed by the Commission in due course and in time to ensure a smooth operational transition towards the new set-up. The operational timing of the drafting of the work programmes is to be set. The final texts adopted by the co-legislators as part of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) package will certainly be a key determining factor. At this stage, the Commission can confirm the ambition to prepare work programmes in a timeframe allowing an adequate transition to the next MFF period, including in terms of visibility for potential beneficiaries and key stakeholders. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025PC0555.”
  EU industrial funding · Size of EU budget · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2025-05-14 “E-001949/2025 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission The Commission remains firmly committed to promoting and safeguarding academic freedom, in line with Article 13 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The protection of researchers, regardless of their country of origin, is integral to ensuring scientific excellence and maintaining trust in research. The association agreement with Egypt, expected to be signed later this year, is expected to include provisions protecting academic freedom. The Commission and EU Member States reaffirmed their commitment to scientific freedom by signing the Bonn Declaration in 2020. Moreover, the Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe 1 explicitly included scientific freedom as one of its ten key values and principles. The Rome Communiqué further strengthened commitments to academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the protection of scholars at risk. The Commission has already launched several initiatives, such as a toolkit to counter foreign interference in R&I 2 . The European Research Area Policy Agenda (2022–2024) 3 contained an action aimed at protecting academic freedom. Initiatives such as EURAXESS Science4Refugees 4 and the SAFE Project 5 also play an important role in supporting scientists at risk. In response to the European Parliament's resolution (2023/2184(INL)) of 17 January 2024 6 , the Commission is currently conducting a study to assess the state of scientific freedom and develop an appropriate legislative response. The Commission will closely monitor the situation and engage in regular dialogue with Egyptian authorities. Through these actions, we want to ensure that researchers can conduct their work freely and without undue interference. 1 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13701-2021-INIT/en/pdf. 2 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3faf52e8-79a2-11ec-9136-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 3 https://european-research-area.ec.europa.eu/policy-agenda-2022-2024. 4 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/frameworks/science4refugees. 5 https://saferesearchers.eu/. 6 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0022_EN.html.”
  EU-Egypt relations · EU competences on human rights
• 2024-12-12 “P-002919/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA) 1 and the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) 2 Regulations entered into force on 28 June and 3 May 2024, respectively, aiming to strengthen the EU's manufacturing capacity for net-zero technologies, such as solar photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, batteries, and heat pumps, while ensuring access to critical raw materials essential for their production. To provide additional clarity on its scope of application, the NZIA includes an Annex that lists final products and specific components considered to be primarily used for the production of net-zero technologies. This Annex will be finalised through a Delegated Act, for which the work is ongoing and for which assessments are being carried out to also determine which materials fall within the scope of the NZIA or CRMA. This includes considerations with regards to polysilicon, which has been included under NZIA in the draft Delegated Act that has been published on 23 January 2025 on Have Your Say 3 portal for a four-week public feedback period. Value chains for critical raw materials are often highly complex. As provided for by the NZIA, critical raw materials falling under the scope of the CRMA are excluded from the scope of the NZIA. Components (including potentially some processed raw materials) primarily used to produce net-zero technologies fall under the scope of the NZIA. Relevant value chains have been analysed in accordance with these provisions. This has resulted, for example, in the differentiation between precursor battery active materials (pCAM) that are covered under CRMA and battery active materials (CAM) that have been included in the draft Delegated Act of NZIA. 1 OJ L, 2024/1735, 28.6.2024 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1735/oj/eng). 2 OJ L, 2024/1252, 3.5.2024 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1252/oj/eng). 3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14409-Delegated-act-on-primarilyused-components-under-the-Net-Zero-Industry-Act_en”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-11-27 “E-002691/2024 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission 1. Compared to Horizon 2020, there is no increased complexity in the Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement 1 . Provisions have been further simplified and harmonised, a data sheet included, and the number of Articles, Annexes and the types of grant agreements reduced. The Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement is based on a corporate model, with streamlined common provisions to all directly and indirectly managed EU funded programmes, to simplify implementation and facilitate synergies. The number of exceptions and special cases stems from specific rules applicable to different EU programmes. Specific provisions for different types of actions are detailed in Annex 5. The type of Model Grant Agreement is included in the documents published with a call for proposals. These measures overall help beneficiaries anticipating the applicable grant agreement provisions and further address them, where necessary, in the consortium agreement in a timely manner. 2. The Commission is planning to progressively simplify the proposal application template by removing the request to provide information on various non-financial obligations. This simplification will be mirrored in the related reporting requirements. 3. While not being a legal obligation, the Commission advises consortia to prepare and sign consortium agreements before the beginning of the grant implementation, in order to have a solid basis for the internal arrangements and avoid conflicts. This explanation is part of the training events that the Commission regularly organises. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/agr-contr/unit-mga_he_en.pdf”
  EU research funding · Simplification measures (political compass)
• 2024-10-30 “E-002337/2024 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission 1. The requirement mentioned by the Honourable Members is not a new one. From the start of Horizon Europe 1 , the application form has asked applicants to give enough detail in their work package description to enable monitoring of proper implementation. The updated form provides extra clarification to achieve a more consistent way of presenting the work plan, and a more harmonised level of detail across applicants. However, the overall approach is unchanged. Through the improved description of the work, the Commission also addresses a recommendation from the European Court of Auditors to ‘define clearer requirements on implementation of Horizon Europe grants’ 2 . 2. The information requested in the application form per task is not the same as in the detailed budget table. The guidance in the application form, including the update, does not concern budget estimates. Instead, it further explains the general requirement to give enough detail on the work plan and quantify it, so that project progress can be monitored. A list of examples aims to help applicants, but they are free to describe and quantify activities in the best possible way for their project. 3. The update to the application form does not introduce new requirements or change the approach but further clarifies how to describe activities in work packages. A full description of activities with a harmonised level of detail helps consortia and Commission services to monitor project progress in all grants. This is especially important for lump sum grants, which are paid without financial reporting when the work has been completed. The Commission will continue to monitor and review its practices to identify and implement simplification measures and reduce the reporting burden for beneficiaries. 1 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en 2 2022 Annual Reports on the implementation of the EU budget for the 2022 financial year and on the activities funded by the 9th, 10th and 11th European Development Funds (EDFs) for the 2022 financial year – https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/AR-2022/AR-2022_EN.pdf (Chapter 5, Recommendation 5.3).”
  Simplification measures (political compass) · EU research funding
• 2024-10-30 “E-002331/2024 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is of the opinion that the benefits of lump sums have materialised. Lump sums will be used when deemed the most appropriate approach. Most participants find that lump sums reduce their administrative burden 1 . Beneficiaries can choose the extent to which they seize the full simplification benefits; while some continue internal financial management tasks, most have stopped some or all of these 2 , which are no longer an obligation in the lump sum grant agreement. 1. Lump sums can be used irrespective of the Research and Innovation content. Horizon Europe governance and the Programme Committee establish where to use lump sums 3,4 . The focus is on call topics for grants below EUR 10 million with 10 or fewer participants. Small and medium enterprises and/or newcomers are particularly positive about lump sums, so topics addressing these groups are good candidates. The recent lump sum assessment confirmed these criteria 5 . 2. Article 29 of the Horizon Europe Regulation 6 states that grant proposals, which include the estimated budget, are evaluated by a committee of external experts. This applies both to actual cost and lump sum grants. In line with the Financial Regulation, the evaluation of lump sum budgets is one of the safeguards for sound financial management in the Decision authorising the use of lump sum under Horizon Europe 7 . The legal basis for experts to evaluate the budget in lump sum proposals stems from the same Decision 8 . Section 3 thereof stipulates that for each work package, experts should review the budget estimate using relevant cost and resource benchmarks 9 to ensure that the proposed resources and lump sum distribution can achieve the expected outcomes. 3. The Commission will continue to monitor lump sums, including as part of the Horizon Europe interim evaluation, and to improve the process, where needed 10,11 . While the legal 1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/other/comm/ls-assessmentreport-2024_en.pdf , section ‘Overall satisfaction’, p. 24-25. 2 e.g. keeping timesheets. 3 As requested by many stakeholders, lump sums are being rolled out gradually. 4 The resulting work programmes are adopted by Commission decision. 5 Link footnote 1 section ‘Survey results’, p. 24-40. 6 OJ L 170, 12.5.2021, p. 1–68. 7 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/lsdecision_he_en.pdf 8 Idem footnote 7. 9 Such as market prices, statistical data, or historical data. 10 Assessment of the Lump Sum Pilot (2018-2020)(https://research-andinnovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/acd39d69-99db-4ddd-b7887c36397b22dd_en?filename=assessment_of_the_lump_sum_pilot_2018-2020_report) of October 2021, the overall positive results available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/en/document/EPRS_STU(2022)697218. 11 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/other/comm/ls-assessmentreport-2024_en.pdf, in particular sections ‘Written comments and suggestions’, p. 41-42, and ‘Conclusions and next steps’, p. 43-45.”
  EU research funding · Simplification measures (political compass)
• 2024-10-30 “E-002333/2024 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission For the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) the Commission launched a comprehensive simplification and harmonisation exercise with the progressive introduction of a common model grant agreement (MGA), set of guidance, including the Annotated Grant Agreement (AGA), and eGrants-use across most directly managed funding programmes. Applicants and beneficiaries are now benefiting from a harmonised experience, lowering access barriers for participation across programmes. The Commission had to ensure that the guidance, which for most EU programmes never existed in scope and level of support before, fully accommodates the business needs and onboarding of programmes to the MGA and eGrants system. To allow time for integration, the AGA (and other guidance) were progressively published and updated since 2021 1 , meaning that a wealth of key information was already available prior to the formal publication of the full version 1.0 in May 2024. A harmonised, consolidated and simplified design of the programmes will be key to accelerate implementation and support for beneficiaries under the next MFF. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/aga_en.pdf”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU (free access) · EU research funding
• 2024-10-30 “E-002334/2024 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission 1. Despite being only one of five ranking criteria for ex aequo scored proposals 1 and used only in 3% of cases in 2021-2023, the gender balance ranking criterion is effective and led to an increase from 37% of women researchers in Horizon 2020 to 38% in Horizon Europe, above the 34% average share of women among EU researchers. There is no evidence that the share of women researchers decreases between proposal and project stage, as it is 1.1 percentage points higher in projects. The share of women in work package leaders has also grown from 23% in Horizon 2020 to 31% in Horizon Europe. 2. The Commission is of the opinion that lump sum proposals are not more complex, but is aware of the concern raised by some beneficiaries. The Horizon Europe application form is the same for all types of grants 2 . All applicants must use detailed cost estimations and keep them on file 3 . For certain lump sum grants, the cost estimations are submitted as part of the proposal. Most applicants confirmed that completing the Excel template provided for this purpose does not take a significant amount of time 4 . To improve user-friendliness, the lump sum budget will be integrated in the electronic submission system 5 . 3. Implementation of the EU budget, including for Research and Innovation, may not harm the environment 6 , and the Commission screens all Horizon Europe topics to ensure this principle. Surveys suggest that applicants appreciate the clear instructions 7 . The Commission has revised the approach to this screening for the second part of Horizon Europe 8 . From 2025 on, the environmental dimension in the ethics appraisal will be improved, to avoid duplication of information in proposals and to better manage the risks of possible negative environmental effects. 1 provided for in the General Annexes of the Horizon Europe Work Programme. 2 irrespective of the costs options that apply. 3 Get prepared - Online Manual - Funding Tenders Opportunities https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding-tendersopportunities/display/OM/Get+prepared (section ‘Budget’). 4 Assessment of Lump Sum Funding in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/other/comm/ls-assessment-report-2024_en.pdf (section ‘Proposal submission and evaluation’, pp. 25-31) 5 Submit a proposal — Electronic Submission System - Online Manual - Funding Tenders Opportunities https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding-tenders-opportunities/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=1867927 6 As set out in the Interinstitutional accompanying the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 of 16 December 2020, Point16 (OJ L 433, 22/12/2020) and in the financial rules (Financial Regulation, Article 33(2d)) - https://commission.europa.eu/publications/eu-financial-regulation_en 7 Horizon Europe and the Green Transition - Publications Office of the EU https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c9383687-6420-11ef-a8ba-01aa75ed71a1/language-en, figure 63. 8 As set out in the Horizon Europe Strategic Plan 2025-2027 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6abcc8e7-e685-11ee-8b2b-01aa75ed71a1 , page 45.”
  Simplification measures (political compass) · EU research funding · Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• 2024-10-30 “E-002336/2024 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission The Legal Entity Appointed Representative (LEAR) is a person responsible to act for and on behalf of the participant 1 in EU award procedures managed in the Funding & Tenders Portal 2 (the Portal). The LEAR is appointed once and is valid (unless changes occur) for all future participations, irrespective of the EU programme. 1. Changing the LEAR’s name and contact details takes on average six days 3 , provided that the participant submits the full set of documents as described in the Validation Rules 4 . The procedure is the same for the previous Research and Innovation programme Horizon 2020 5 and the current one Horizon Europe 6 , as well as for all programmes managed via the Portal. 2. The procedure for changing a LEAR is set out in the Validation Rules and is equivalent to appointing a new LEAR. The procedure is initiated by the existing LEAR or if the existing LEAR is not available any longer, the participant must use the LEAR Recovery procedure 7 in the Portal. To change the LEAR, the participant must submit via the Portal a new LEAR appointment letter signed by the legal representative of the entity and by the LEAR, copies of identity documents for both persons signing the appointment letter and proof that the legal representative is authorised to commit the entity in its entirety vis-a-vis third parties. The Central Validation Service in the European Research Executive Agency analyses the documents, and if those are considered complete 8 , it will validate the LEAR appointment in the IT tools. 3. The procedure to replace a LEAR is simple, ensuring that the person acting in the Portal is authorised by the entity to do so. The procedure was improved by introducing the LEAR recovery functionality in the Portal and recently by reducing the number of documents to be submitted. 1 For example, in the context of grant/contract management, the LEAR can communicate with the EU services and perform various actions in the IT tools, such as update the legal or other data of the entity they represent, sign contracts, submit cost claims, grant specific rights to other persons. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/home 3 Based on statistics for the period January – September 2024. 4 The Validation Rules are published and available to all participants in the Portal: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/rules-lev-learfca_en.pdf. The Validation Rules are referenced in all calls managed via the Portal, and form therefore part of the conditions for participation. 5 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-2020_en 6 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en 7 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding-tendersopportunities/display/IT/Launch+a+LEAR+recovery+action+for+validated+organisations 8 In case of missing information, or incorrect documents, the Central Validation Service will contact the participant via the Participant Register to request the missing data or documents. The procedure will be resumed as soon as the participant has uploaded the missing information.”
  Simplification measures (political compass) · EU research funding
• 2024-10-30 “E-002335/2024 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission Systems and Process Audits (SPA) have been introduced to reduce the burden of Horizon Europe beneficiaries, they are not replacing ex-ante assessments which continue to exist. 1. So far, the Commission did not receive any formal application for a SPA under Horizon Europe. In application of the relevant rules (Article 24.4 of the Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement 1 ), only entities having formalised documentation on their systems and processes for calculating their costs, having participated in at least 150 projects under Horizon 2020 or the Euratom Research and Training Programme 2 and participating in at least three ongoing Horizon Europe project (or the Euratom Research and Training Programme 3 ) may apply for a SPA. These entities are major beneficiaries of EU research funding, but they only represent a minor proportion of the total number of Horizon Europe beneficiaries. 2. As to the impact on the error rate, there is no reason to believe that SPAs would lead to a higher error rate. These audits will be complemented by an audit of transactions which will be conducted as a standard financial audit, using the same indicative audit programme, therefore not causing any legal uncertainty. For successful beneficiaries, their error rate is expected to remain low because their systems and processes for calculating costs are effective. 3. Since the SPA is still in its very early stages of implementation, the Commission will monitor the outcome based on concrete cases and consider if adjustments would be necessary. In any case, in terms of improvements for beneficiaries, as mentioned above, the aim of the SPA is to reduce their administrative burden 4 and to benefit from a higher threshold for submitting certificates on the financial statements. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/agr-contr/generalmga_horizon-euratom_en.pdf 2 2014-2018 or 2019-2020. 3 2014-2018 or 2019-2020. 4 i.e. to benefit from less (or less in-depth) ex-post audits.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · EU research funding
• 2024-10-30 “E-002332/2024 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission 1. According to the Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement 1 , beneficiaries have 60 days to submit their technical/scientific and financial reports, not six weeks. The Commission does not intend to adjust this period, as doing so would inevitably result in longer delays for the beneficiaries expecting the final payment after the project end. Exceptionally, the 60 days period can be extended, if justified by the specific circumstances of a project. Moreover, the extended use of lump sum project funding reduces this administrative burden, as in lump sum grants no financial reports are needed. 2. The Commission supports beneficiaries in adhering to Horizon Europe rules through ‘avoiding errors’ campaigns. They include a webinar ‘Certificate on the Financial Statements’ 2 providing guidance and support not only to beneficiaries, but also to the providers of audit reports. While no specialised audit support network is planned, resources like the annotated grant agreement and the research enquiry service are publicly accessible, along with project-specific advice from the responsible project officers. 3. According to Article 29 of the Model Grant Agreement, the granting authority may suspend the payment deadline to request additional information, ensuring an informed decision on cost eligibility. The Commission has developed guidance on ex-ante controls for Horizon Europe, designed to ensure harmonised and cost-efficient checks on submitted reports. The objective is to reduce unnecessary burden on beneficiaries while mitigating the overall risk of errors. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/agr-contr/unit-mga_he_en.pdf 2 The Certificate on the Financial Statements (CFS) is an audit report that beneficiaries are required to submit with their final reports when their requested EU contribution for a project exceeds EUR 430 000. This certificate must be prepared by an independent and qualified auditor. The costs associated with obtaining a CFS can be charged to the EU project.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU (free access) · EU research funding
• 2024-10-24 “P-002256/2024 Answer given by Ms Ivanova on behalf of the European Commission As a general rule, both the Commission and its executive agencies must respect the scientific independence and scientific integrity of researchers and therefore do not intervene on the personnel choices of the beneficiaries’ research teams involved in specific projects. In exceptional cases the evaluators may formulate recommendations to address shortcomings detected during the evaluation (potentially including cost-related recommendations) and accordingly these issues should be addressed at the grant agreement preparation stage. This possibility following a recommendation by evaluators should however not interfere with the autonomy of beneficiaries to appoint the researchers working on projects. The Commission is not aware of any case such as the one mentioned by the Honourable Member (i.e. beneficiaries being asked to replace senior researchers with more junior ones), and while it is part of the duties of the Commission and its agencies to monitor the grant implementation and, if needed, to intervene in complex projects by suggesting corrective measures, this should be done respecting the scientific independence of beneficiaries. On the contrary, during project implementation, the general rule is that key researchers (whose involvement in the proposal may have been one factor being considered by evaluators when scoring it) should remain in the project during its implementation and not be replaced by more junior ones. Should the Honourable Member consider that a potential abuse on this matter has taken place, the Commission is willing to look into it upon reception of the specific details of the case.”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU · EU research funding
• “Thank you. Um, in Europe, the the space sector is currently dominated by large incumbent companies. So the space market in recent years therefore hadn't been very agile, although internationally we might see an almost opposite, um, development. So but we know that we need to incentivize SMEs and startups to participate in the European space sector. And we do know that startups could be a few people today and then capitalised by the market will be a thousands of tomorrow. So it's not just small companies. So this is more important than ever to further lose, um, the not to lose the innovation race in space technologies. And likewise it's important for resilience. If the EU wants to be autonomous in access to space and exploitation of space data. We think that we need resilience in our supply chain. So SMEs and startups play a significant role in that. Under the current framework, plays an extensive role in Galileo Copernicus. Com. I would like to ask, what is your space currently doing to incentivise SMEs and start up participation within your space remit of European space governance? First of all. Where do you see weaknesses and what will you improve in the future to make the space market more competitive? Thank you. And just perhaps to add, I would express a certain worry also, since in the past we somehow had underestimating the defense, um, aspect of that, that for a reason. Member states were not very keen on that. On the other side, we are a little bit worried that we are now turning extremely in the other direction. That would be also an additional question related to you. Thank you.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “And my second question is, I mean, there is always this argument that somehow that's basic research and open sky research, but somehow that is not connected to, let's say, a certain tendency that we want to bring research into being, getting into products, into new companies. But interestingly, we see what we originally hadn't seen, that the link between the ERC and the EIC is a relatively strong one. We had been expecting that a lot of proposals would come from the second for the industry pillar, but we learned that all of a sudden that a lot of proposals are coming from the EIC to from the ERC to the EIC. But that opens up the question also in relation to the development of the instruments. How could that be forced? Um, what would be the idea of a structural corporation? How could that be incorporated in the design of grants or the flexibility we grant for a grantee, actually? Um, yes. As it is in the US that they often get, then entrepreneurs become entrepreneurs. So that would be my question a little bit. What what would be the vision I had besides plausibly to get more money?”
  Research priorities within the EU
• “That worked very well to align a little bit about the priorities. Speaking about the priorities, I think what is unquestioned here in the Parliament is that the Parliament is united, that we want to have a standalone framework, programme ten and we are deeply worried, although we appreciate all the efforts from the Commission in terms of competitiveness, that this programme is squeezed in a super bazooka competitiveness programme. I think that is one of the expectations towards the council, and we would like to ask you, but also find us united with the research ministers, that we are not part of a kind of super bazooka. We need a dedicated programme and I might, might also refer to the treaties. We would see that also to some extent as a violation to the treaties, because there must be a standalone program. There is nothing else. And it would be an interesting discussion about the treaties if that wouldn't be the case. So my first question is standalone program. Second question is a little bit looking to the abstract. And that's the discussion about the freedom of academia.”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU
• “Thank you. Two questions to all the speakers. The Commission just proposed to extend the scope of the Euro HPC joint undertaking to enable to it to fund AI gigafactories, but also to bring all quantum research spending into the joint undertaking. This means the joint undertaking will fund conventional high performance computing infrastructure, quantum computing research, quantum communication research, and quantum sensing research, as well as the creation and operation of AI gigafactories. My question is a little bit. And you hear this thin ice cracking. Is it a smart way to put this all in one program with just one budget? Um, and my second question goes to Professor Calarco and Mr. Gruevski directly. Big global competitors like IBM have lead us on. When it comes to functional full stack quantum computers, their timeline is much more ambitious than ours. In other quantum technologies like quantum communication, we are further ahead. In general, quantum computing more much. In general, quantum computing more mature while quantum communication is still in development. What can we learn from your experience in the global race for quantum computing dominance? To ensure that quantum communication in quantum communication, we do not lose yet again our edge.”
  EU research funding
• “I would just give to the record that our colleague from the PFA in very abstract terms. Expressing solidarity. Hungary had been expressing solidarity against the European treaties because Hungary had condemned by the European Court of Justice to violate the treaties. So we have a party here who expresses solidarity for someone who had been convicted by the European Court. That's interesting. That is really interesting that you now announce here in public space that you express solidarity to violating the European treaties. That means you want to step out of the European treaties. I mean, this is really interesting. And we simply could get should get that to the records, because that means that you're stepping out of the union. You simply openly say, we express solidarity to someone who is violating the treaties which had been signed specifically, also by your country. And that should be taken to the records because this, this political blah blah on solidarity. That means it in legal terms. And you openly say that here and that I think should at least we should take to the records.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “(11:07:25 – 11:09:03): Thank you very much. I think, relating to colleagues, but also to our guests, I mean, there are 3 issues up to up for decision in in the recent time, which are relevant for the discussion. First of all, it's the European grid package. We have to have more of a European steering that we overcome the capacity and investment shortages in some member states in the interest of connecting Europe, but also connecting our neighbor countries to the grid, specifically to the gas grid, but also potentially to the electricity grid. That is the reason why my colleague, Danica, and me will provide a proposal on Monday on the European Comptelis Fund, which foresees an infrastructure budget for the grid. Because I think strategically, we have to understand that national interests are well placed, but virtually, national interest in terms of grid has to be contextualized in the European context, but also in the context of the political importance and geopolitical importance of our neighbor states. And then thirdly, I think that, we should start considerations on how to connect our neighboring countries to the European gas reserve. It's a critical issue. It's an expensive issue. We had a lot of discussions in recent time, but I think strategically, that is a way to go because it's in the interest of our neighbor states, but it's also in our strategic interest to stabilize the situation in our neighbor countries. Thank you very much.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “So, um, ladies and gentlemen, um, I would never have thought that I proceed a meeting which ends in time. It might be because I wasn't allowed to talk too long. Um, we have five minutes left for the commissioner. I would suggest that since that's close to a miracle, that she's going to answer, that we have good experience, that in this kind of format, we we send the the the questions in written. Usually you get a much better answer than with an oral question in the plenary, to be honest. So I would offer the commissioner to use the five minutes because then, um, a translation is gone. Um, and if there are a question not answered yet, then we would receive that as a written answer. I think it's for both sides better, because it's ridiculous to believe that we can manage that in five minutes on the other side. It's to your satisfaction if you get that then more concisely in written so the floor is yours.”
  Multilingualism in EU institutions
• “If polysilicon are also or more used for chips than it would be used for panels. So before any assessment. In substance of the list, I would strongly recommend to the Commission Services to stick to the agreed legislative compromise for any future secondary legislation. Deviating from that brings us into serious waters and doesn't make the reality easier, because that will be then judgments hard to take for the commission. Secondly, I have a specific question concerning the concerning one net zero technology, and that's the CO2 transport infrastructure. The orientation and I quote final product is newly added in the revised revision, but the only identified component that the Commission sees as essential for CO2 transport are CO2 compressors. That might be also not realistic. If we want to see a kind of CO2 transport backbone in Europe. However, by the only by only compressing the CO2 it can handle be transported somewhere. So, I mean, I think that we should have a more practical solution. So my question is what are the essential components did the Commission consider for this net zero technology and why they were not included? Because I think if we want to have private sector investment, we have really to clarify whether the only substantial component for CO2 transport is compressors.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “Detailed calls drafted by the commission officials and responding mostly to specific interests from inside the Commission or Member states are not what will drive our frontier knowledge and technology forward looking new program the need. We need scientists, innovators and experts to draft calls texts that challenge our researchers to push the frontier just a bit further than they than they considered possible. The third point is that we need to rethink how the program, how we program our collaborative research. Collaborative research remains in the heart. At the heart of Horizon Europe, however, as Mr. Draghi noted in his report, the funding for collaborative research is spread thin across too many topics. Or, as Professor Hayter identified in his report, our current approach is excellent for distributing funds but terrible for funding the best signs of research possible. We need to go big on a limited number of top down priorities, which are also creating more space for bottom up collaborative research. The fourth point is about the independence of the European Research Council and the European Innovation Council. Bureaucratic attempts to undermine that independence will not be accepted. To really drive European excellence, these kinds of programs need independence and a dedicated regulatory framework that includes both the ability to take risk and the accountability for the use of public funds. The fifth point is what our widening policy has to make to major the Commission. Proposals to differentiate between widening countries and transition countries underlines two essential aspects of widening. Firstly, it underlines that widening support is meant to make itself obsolete.”
  Research priorities within the EU
• “And you have to stand. We have to know what's going to happen in the defense area. Medical uses, aerospace uses. How how are those sectors of the economy going to deal with, uh, radical prohibition because you're actually endangering the the health of patients in hospitals if you have a radical prohibition. And what about, uh, fire protection on ships and tanks? Do you think soldiers and sailors would rather, uh, burn to death and have that protection? So if you just say if you start questioning the design of the study, we are addressing what you have been ignoring, that where you have this amazing idea that this can all be replaced tomorrow by magic. No, we're looking at the key industries and saying, what's going to happen? What are the competitive risks? In which areas are we not in yet capable of finding adequate substance? That was the study. So I think it's I completely object to what is being insinuated here that these people were doing these studies in, in in saying they're somehow dependent. The people doing the studies are dependent on the, on the business sector. No, you don't want to look at the economic impact of a radical prohibition. I think you have to openly then prove that there's been some kind of an impact on this study. You can't just sort of vaguely hint about bias. We have asked to have a a very limited study on the economic impact of the prohibition. And I think you have a very differentiated, balanced, realistic study being produced Because you're dealing with questions that the Greens never have ever addressed.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “I would have a question to the commission on the do no significant calm principle. I mean, you had been reducing. We have a light version of do no significant harm. But still, for example, if you're doing to develop, QAE software for, military technologies, I mean, you you have to prove in the self declaration that you're running your program on c o 2 efficient, high computing center, which are feeded by low carbon or green energy and so on so. I mean, either we take the dunosifican principle seriously, but then it's an obligation almost not to bear for for the military technology. Or we we ask for self declarations where a small company has to prove what is the c o 2 foot footprint of a server which they had been using to develop the software. Then you have to go to the high computing center, prove that they're using preferably green energy and things like that. They're all in a self declaration. Wouldn't it be time if you pretend that agile is agile? That that would be the the the moment where we say we exclude the the the these fast running programs from the do no significant harm principle because we ask for ridiculous self declarations for small companies, which are not going to change any environment because we are not going to stop to use I high computing center for developing AI and watch what is the meaning to prove that? So in a way, wouldn't it be time to have an exclusion from the Dunno, Seifi and Ham principle for agile? Because otherwise, I mean, we'd ridiculous our efforts in terms of efficiency and also in terms of, the pretension that would somehow serve the environment.”
  Artificial Intelligence for military purposes
• “Wow. I would have thought that the chair is introducing. So But thank you for giving me the word. Dear colleagues, I believe that we are all united in the call that we need to make our industries more competitive. But I would be careful to create the next illusion. And that is that there will be a silver bullet called the lead markets. In the current conversation, we are talking about creating lead markets for decarbonisation, and some elements of that feed into creating lead markets are long overdue, obviously. So harmonised standards, labeling of low carbon products can boost the development of a single market for low carbon materials in Europe, but we should be very careful with mandating lead markets for downstream offtakers of materials or technologies. Mandating the procurement of green steel, European steel or green European steel will increase the cost of downstream products. It doesn't fix the competitiveness problem, but just push it. It's further down the supply chain. Although there are practical examples where you could create markets, if, for example, in the automotive industry, you would look realistically to the CO2 footprint and not just calculating the CO2 footprint from the engine to the pipe immediately.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “So thank you very much. Sorry for being late, but we're jumping between committees. I would like to thank the rapporteur and the committee for the close cooperation. And I think we are all aligned on the fact that R&D and research and innovation is the key factor for European competitiveness. And so, in a way, I feel backed up very much by the Budget Committee and specifically by the rapporteur, by his report. I mean, we have complex questions to answer in terms of the governance of the fund. It's we're in a unique situation that for the first time, on the one hand, we propose a substantial uprise in terms of R&D money. On the other hand, the governance by a third instrument, the ECF is at least mildly said, pretty much blurry. So we have to be really careful that we have a dedicated R&D budget and not a kind of flexibility reserve for Commission's ambition. Having said that in more principled terms, I'm very much, uh, backup. Also, the idea that we in terms of the EIC fund that we are re loading this fund because I think it's one of the most substantial contribution to overcome the Valley of death, the financing gap we have in terms of innovative deep tech technologies in Europe. So I think we are going to work closely together. The Budget committee, you're going to protect the money. We are trying to contribute in substance. And I really would like to welcome that. We go on with that cooperation. During the negotiations. Thank you very much.”
  EU research funding
• “Our goal should be to ensure the member States that the member states no longer need widening support. Secondly, it underlines that we need to define what at what point are member states no longer need support. It's that point that we consider the participation in the framework programme to be sufficient when it's the level of participation, participation, or when is the level of participation sufficient? So the sixth and last point is on simplification. We need to put the applicants and participants at the heart of simplification. We need smart use of lump sums, not a one size fits all idea. When it's clear that for some participants it's not a simplification. We need a more agile programme. This should include a shorter time to grant, but this cannot be achieved by simply reducing the grant negotiation time the Commission has to optimise its processes. This should also include more flexibility in the implementation of projects. Projects need to be able to change direction if scientific insights or technical technological developments warrant that we need an annotated model grant agreement to be available at the start of the program, and not almost two years later. There are many other issues we need to address, but these are the six key points in my view, that will be crucial for the success of FP ten. And I look really forward to the debate of today and further cooperation with all the colleagues involved. Thank you very much.”
  EU research funding
• “I mean, let's let's go practical on batteries that had been defined as a key technology. The commission is now struggling for almost two years to produce something that we have a reliable account for carbon emissions of materials, knowing that the delegated act on the CO2 footprint of batteries is still stuck, because there is no feasible and solid way to ensure the accounting is globally reliable. So, I mean, if we talk about ambition, it's nice to formulate that. But if we look what had been the deliveries is relatively poor. So on batteries the simple question is, do we have a methodology to pretty much say what we are talking about? And then secondly, as I had been said, would be be willing to accept that a not so developed technology would be the one publicly procured. Because if you would say, okay, we have to go against subsidies and dumping, we also would have to refer whether we call about equivalent quality. Secondly, my question would be, I mean, I see a lot of these issues pointing to the member states. What if the commission would look a little bit to itself? I mean, as colleagues have been rightly saying, I mean, on the CO2 footprint, this is a European regulation for the car industry. If it comes to the question of costs, I mean, if you look to the to the market, where is the approach in this industrial Policy Act on the Common Market.”
  Sustainability of batteries regulation
• “So you somehow were dancing around about the question of the governance structure. So who should be there, and is it really plausible that it works top down? Second question is, isn't it the illusion that there is flexibility when we practically have the same number of priorities that we had been before, camouflaged by four windows, but then underneath 141 objective and instruments. And that is flexibility, because it just camouflages the fact that the cost of opportunity are not so, so obviously to be seen. So when we take out money for very flexible for a Chips act, we reduce simply quantum spending by half. If you have the same priorities and you're super flexible, you don't change anything economically. You're just hiding the cost of opportunity because you have the same priorities, which you cannibalize by super flexibility. And my last question is simply what do you think how we get out of that in terms of either governments or structuring the link between research policy and industrial policy? Thank you.”
  Research priorities within the EU
• “I try to stick to the time as the Commissioner had been doing it. Um, so only last week the green steel plant in Germany stopped producing green steel because energy prices are too high and hydrogen is not available. The case of the European steel producers is an alarming illustration of our shortcomings over the past years. The market is constantly flooded by unfair subsidized products. The European industry is losing competitiveness globally due to the ever increasing cost, and we are not supporting European industry enough in the implementation of the Green Deal. So in summary, there is currently no business case for European steelmakers, neither in the short nor in the long term. So the perspective which had been brought for the long term strategy, that doesn't reflect the reality. The problem is today. So we do not correct the situation. If we do not correct the situation, the structural impacts on the slow erosion of the industrial base will ruin any ambition on competitiveness. That's our shiny new compass outlines as our shiny new compass outlines today. In practical terms, the EP is going to refuse the delegated act on hydrogen if we are not finding a better compromise on how we feed in hydrogen into the, the the the production in in of steel industry in Europe, they're going to die. Today a Day a contract. None of the European companies has a contract, a long term contract on hydrogen. The prices on the market are 24 times 12 times higher than for low carbon hydrogen. So that is not going to work. And I asked the commission really quite practically. So if we keep up this version of the delegated act and engage in fancy color discussion instead of solving the problem. Hydrogen ramp up will fail in amounting to anything more than a pleasant vision of the European industry. My question is practically long term, mid-term or nice? What are you going to do on these issues? Short term?”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “What I believe would be also necessary that there would be a kind of overarching coordination in the in the commission. I give you one example. We have one glass producer left in Europe, a single one who is producing glass for solar panels. By the way, we are at the same time doing a regulation that in glass production, which is dramatically shutting down in Europe anyway, um, that we don't want to have atomium, which is a very poisonous, uh, ingredient in glass. And this glass producer is the only one in Europe existing, producing glass for solar panels. Without that, all the imports from China are with that poisonous component. So in a way, um, also in terms of procurement, it's really high time that member states put that in the procurement criteria, because otherwise, um, we are somehow contradicting or somehow excluding our intention to get rid of this poisonous component of glass production. Because we're depending on China completely on the glass production, we can't rule it out because otherwise we don't have glass for solar panels. And that exactly shows that it needs a certain, let's say, horizontal coordination within the commission, because envy is acting on that poisonous component. At the same time, we are we are we are going to kill because we don't have a procurement argument for public procurement in order to favor European gas production, which is exactly not using that. And so that shows in some fields that we are going to shoot in our own leg, because to some extent, this coordination between the different DGS would be really needed. And I think we should also push the member states to understand if they don't in a very fast way, change their procurement rules. We simply have shut down all the production in Europe, and then Cbam is not going to work because we either can choose not to have any glass for solar panels and uptakes, or we're going to accept that Chinese, the Chinese are not going to produce it otherwise.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “I think we would like to allow project based emissions right from the start of the adoption of the delegated act, so that everyone also knows in the League of Affordable Energy Action Plan, there's virtually three times the word hydrogen, but nothing on the delegated act. And that might constitute the reality of whether we are going to produce low carbon hydrogen or actually not. And thirdly, I would like shortly to comment on the energy situation that are referred in the Clean Industrial Deal and the action plan. We found it amazing that it's three degrees, but not you being part of this clean industrial deal, but that is an internal thing in the commission. But we would like to be a little bit more precise. Do you plan to prolong the Iberian exemption? Do you intend to prolong the market correction mechanism so that the gas price. So a gas price cap. Do you think that the revision of 24 is not sufficient enough? I think that constitutes practically the reality of of industry in Europe. The horizontal announcements are impressive, but we would like to understand a little bit what virtually will come out of that.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “These are complete value change. These are the starting points. The trickle down effect of a lot. I mean, France had been bravely investing in eastern Germany and French companies, but without basic chemical industry, this is not going to work. And we should understand that. That's not an excuse for that. We have to do something for our climate ambition. It's not an exclusive that this industry has to transform, but we should realise we are at the brink. Or it might be even five after 12, that we are simply ruling out the industrial base of the chemical industry in Europe. And so we highly appreciate what the two commissioners, I would suppose it will be a more joint exercise in the future, had been announcing today we welcome that. We think it's a coherent package. We think it's not easy for commissioners to join in because there are environmental concerns and other issues. But it is just a starting point. We have to keep a business case for the chemical industry in Europe right now, and this is massively questioned by the industry itself. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “Given the acceptance of of the colleagues. Um, I my my question, my technical question would be since we have the brilliant in terms of translation so we don't get lost in translation, but usually we get lost in the complexity and number of questions in relation to the number of times we're granting to the in depth expertise to the of of that hearings and the expert we're inviting. Would it be possible that we would ask colleagues to, if they're willing to, to formulate their questions in written and as an addendum to the hearing, we would ask the the experts and give them the opportunity in more depth, using their expertise to answer the question, because I think the challenge will be that, at least on the commission side, the Commission often get lost in the complexities of the answer and might not remember them. And so, in a way, it would be very helpful if we would colleagues would be willing the ones who want to write, to perform a letter in written, we would convey that via the chair to the expert, and that would give them the time to use the in-depth expertise and not be completely limited by the time and the overwhelming number of questions. Would that be possible?”
  Multilingualism in EU institutions
• “And I think if I well remember, um, two terms ago, the Commission had been presenting Russia as one of the main strategic new allies for the European Union. It might be that things are also changing over time. A third question is the question on a very specific issue, and that is in the industry pillar, our attempt to strengthen the creative industries. And that is not just a kind of orchid issue. It's the fastest growing part of the European economy, highly innovative. If you look to the gaming industry and we would like that could also be written a little bit of information to what extent the money had been spent, because last remark, for example, you have an instrument in your hand where we are funding a a platform, but not just a platform. It is to collect all the data And all the content of all the museums in Europe. This is groundbreaking. It's unseen. There is no continent doing something like that. Neither China nor the United States. We are doing that. Um, and I think these are projects which have a visibility and are so core to the European idea that we would like to know a little bit what is the rollout of that? And we would like to highlight that it's also a selling point for for the program which goes beyond research. I think it's at the core of the European identity, and it would be interesting for us to learn a little bit about what is going to happen there. Thank you.”
  EU and national cultural identities
• “So welcome, Commissioner, to the committee. Um, we all almost breathless looking to all the horizontal announcement from the commission, starting with a compass. Now a clean industrial deal. The affordable action plan. I mean, let's start with something good. I think. I believe and EPB believes that the focus on implementing the electricity market reform and Red two finalizing the Energy Taxation Directive, investing heavily in cross border infrastructure. That's the correct approach to lower energy prices. But still we see a certain kind of dilemma in terms of what horizontally is announced and vertically is then brought forward in terms of implementing acts, for example. So, um, I'd like to focus and you can imagine that on hydrogen, the clean industrial deal leak, there is wording on the adoption of a pragmatic definition of low carbon hydrogen. So what does that mean concretely, Commissioner? I mean for the EPP it means following. We do not want the same criteria of additionality and temporary temporal correlations. Any renewable electricity according to the red three must attribute zero greenhouse gas emissions measures to the greenhouse gas intensity of the grid, not on an annual average, but on hourly average, because I think otherwise it's just a punishment. If you have green electricity, you should be allowed to take that out of the grid to produce energy, and you shouldn't be punished by the overall annual mix.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “But actually that doesn't bring us really closer to be competitive on the market. So that is the principal question. And then in practical terms, we are a little bit worried, to be honest, um, that we are not really not concise enough. So there is not so much mentioning where we good at in terms of contaminants. That was deepening of the market. We would have expected more on concrete measures, deepening the electricity market, the energy market, things like that. Then the reduction of transaction costs. I mean, it's mentioned, but not concretely. And then the question of innovation in terms of research and innovation on their own terms for the industry. So that is also a question which is in the room, because we hear a lot about the fuss about the Competitiveness Fund and the not self independent research programme. And that is something we wouldn't back. So my question is simple. What do you think? What is competitiveness or is it more a paper on the mix between competitiveness sovereignty and what is the direction to go if we have a compass now?”
  Research priorities within the EU
• “Thank you, Commissioner, for the colleagues newly joining. I'm not suffering by the delusion of grandeur. I'm just sharing because I couldn't run away and all the chairs and vice chairs hadn't been available. So by by saying that, I give the floor to me. Sorry for that, but. So, um, the first speaker is now Mr. Ehler from the EPP. Um, um, so thank you, Commissioner, for, for for being here. Um, I mean, to start with, I'm a little bit worried. I mean, we're going to allocate these files hopefully next week. And I think we're going hopefully to manage that. Um, we keep that all together. So we keep together in the interim committee the horizon uh, and the and the ECF file. Um, but by saying that I'm a little bit worried, um, not just in, in practical terms, um, that, um, this discussion on these files, which are closely connected to each other, are somehow, um, yeah, problematic because you might have seen that the council had been taking already parts of that into brackets, um, specifically, for example, the widening. And I can't imagine how we're going to negotiate a program. And then in the end of the MFF negotiations, the finance ministers of all are deciding on the widening with which is then not reflected yet again in the negotiations, because we are under time pressure. And, um, although I appreciate the work of finance ministers, but usually they are specific knowledge on um, on, on science and technology might not be the way that we are not endangered, that they're treating somehow compromises on widening and other issues. They're put in brackets in exchange for milk quotas or whatever. So my first question would be, I mean, the proposals for horizon and ECF are not very clear on the governance. And the question is how it will work in practice will depend on what the competitiveness coordination tool will look like and how the ECF comitology will be sharpened, and on what the role of the Commission, on what the role of the Commission sees the work programmes, given that they are no longer or you no longer want, at least alongside the proposal to define the calls there.”
  EU research funding
• “The chair. Welcome and happy New Year, Mrs. Yonah. Um, it's good to see that the Commission is putting competitiveness on the top of the political agenda for the EP. We, of course, welcome all measures that can boost the competitiveness of European companies. I would like to dive a little bit deeper into the reasons for why there is no European battery production. And what exactly is the market failure here? I mean, we saw attempts of intervention from the public sector, like the German government having spent €600 billion in a battery factory later than getting bankrupt. So the question is, um, is it really a market failure? Is it a competition problem? Is it an innovation problem? But I think we can to some extent clearly root the cause of the problem. That's market access globally, especially in US and China. It's getting more difficult for European companies. So they have a much smaller market, whereas the European market is relatively open. And I'm seldomly asking for protectionism. But I think, um, what do you think in terms of the enforcement of, um, single market rules, anti-dumping and anti-subsidy try to find measures for batteries, and we do that robustly for steel. But in this case we are fairly reluctant because we're looking for Chinese investment in Europe. And so the commission has been relatively reluctant in that. Also on the conditionalities on foreign investment. And then my last question would be, um, I mean, if you compare, we're looking to the to the recent generation of lithium ion batteries, but we do know that won't be the answer technology wise, because as you rightly said, they're to heavy, they're inefficient. They're very expensive. They're raw material intensive. So there is already a next generation. But in the recent publication of the OECD and a comparison of investments in research and development, and Europe is investing roughly one tenth of the investment in China in that generation. So how would you perceive, let's say, to look to the outlook for the next generation, and not so much how to substitute or how to keep up with the recent generation of auto batteries.”
  Sustainability of batteries regulation · Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• “Mr. president, madam president, ladies and gentlemen, these are difficult times. In these times. This action plan is a good sign. I look to the AfD. They have populist friends in America, and their friends are leading us into a protectionist war. So look at what their industrial policy would mean for us. Their policies would lead us to trade war. So I'd like to see the reality of their industrial policy. Actually, I don't want to imagine it. Now we have further measures from the commission, a steel safeguard which will go until summer 2026. Further strengthening thereof. And now practical measures. So there will be better rules for hydrogen. And that is a very important signal for the steel and metal production sites. I look to Mr. Eickhout. I'm hoping for your support and the support of all groups in Parliament so that we get a realistic, delegated act. Now the Cbam solution needs to be presented soon and end up in a legal act. Then there are also going to be political guidelines for green hydrogen. That must not just be a set of mere words, but actual, implementable action. Now we also need to look at the competitiveness of this sector. We need to work on it. We need to ensure competitiveness, but we need to get accustomed to a new kind of realism. And that new realism begins today.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “But we should have an eye on that. What we haven't mentioned is the rule of law conditionality. So some member states do not have access to the full national envelope under the cohesion funds due to the rule of law issues. And we should have a look that we are not watering down this issue for the purpose of flexibility. And then technically, as a follow up, and I'm a friend of something which somehow got lost in this Parliament and this is comitology. We should then also look have a closer look on on what that means, for example, for horizon, because we are addressing them more practically the, the EIC. And obviously there's the question of the reflow of unused funds from EIC, an EIC pilot that is more or less that we are integrating step into the EIC funding. And then I think we should be watchful in terms of that. The EP generally wants to full reuse any unused funds. But member states usually oppose. So if we do not create this legal route for funds to return to the onion budget, that will be lost. And that is also not very much specified in what the Commission had been bringing forward, because the the EIC is a is a refundable fund, so to say. And um, and there's still a little bit of an open question how whether that would be then also related to the to the step part.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Good morning Commissioner. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I think Choose Europe for signs. This initiative, announced by president von der Leyen, is an important signal for Europe and the world. But luckily it had been accompanied also by a press conference where the president had been announcing that there will be a standalone research program, which necessarily is the base for that ambition. And I think we should also emphasise that this is not that we want to attract the most talented in the world is that we stand in also for the freedom of science. Much smaller programs, like the programs Researchers at Risk is are an expression for that stand in. Yes, we want to be attractive for the world, but we also are the safe haven for researchers, women researchers and Afghanistan researchers under pressure in other parts of the world. And we are the safe haven for them. So it's both our expression for excellence or ambition for excellence, but also our expressions for standing in for the freedom of science, basically. I mean, we all know that it's just going to work if we have a strong research program, I mean, we can appeal to the world, but if we have not an high ambition in terms of research, it's not going to be attractive. So what we need is simply put, more money. The last program had been designed for a budget of 120 billion, and we ended up with 80. So research budgets are in constraints, and that is in complete opposition to what our ambition formulated. Ambition had been. 3% of the GDP of Europe should be at least allocated to research and innovation. So in a way, ambitions should follow also with the political courage to prioritise research and innovation in Europe. So if I may end up, if I conclude now that the Commission and even the president has fully recognised the importance of science for the future of Europe, we expect also the Commission's proposal for FP ten. And that is the commission which also choose signs for Europe. Thank you very much.”
  Research priorities within the EU
• “So, Commissioner. First of all, you have the backing of the EPP for your proposal. And we see the complicated issues in the council. We heard a lot of emotions here. A little bit. Very being very emotional at the cost of others. Murder. Is this a dish served cold? And to be honest, we were worried about the article 15 in terms of the force majeure. And we would really like to clarify that as our shadow rapporteur had been laying that out. There's another question on the on the question of services and in LNG terminal controlled by, uh, Russians. There is an issue I think we have to clarify that. But the third question would be, um, how do you see the real world implementation and we see a state actor acting like a criminal? And do you see member states commission really prepared to also then to impose and and and to get that through because otherwise we decide something and then we end as a lame duck. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “So, ladies and gentlemen, let's end that discussion a little bit on a positive tone. I think there is a some air of realism in energy intensive industries are the core and the backbone of the European industries. On the other hand, decarbonisation is a generation task and it is also leading to new investments and it's also based on new technologies. And Europe needs that. On the other hand, we have to tackle the conflict of ambitions. Not all sustainability goals will be reached and that will be a painful discussion. So let's get much more practical from my point of view. We need more and faster permitting. We need affordable energy through a market based and smarter using of the mechanisms. And in terms of infrastructure investments, We need more investments in decarbonisation. We have to care about our investment market, the capital market in the union. We have to care about additional proposals which we had been avoiding so far. We need Co two storage. We need a realistic system to make it market based. We need to end the discussion, the ideological discussion about hydrogen. We need practically everything, every hydrogen we can get. And I think the positive note that with the steel pact, we got a realistic proposal on green hydrogen on the table will help the industries. So let's go back to business. Let's go back to reality. Let's understand this is the core of our industry, but not get in another depression. America is not the best example for these industries.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Excited, but I don't see anyone else commenting. Fine. Then we go to the next item and that is the educational travel to Canada. And it will be Mr. Nichol who is going to reflect that a little bit.”
  EU strategy for tourism development
• “To set that straight because it would be the first time that the Commission is positioning itself to our knowledge and to what our legal service had been advising us, and also referring to the recent answers to the Commission. Where we are concerned about and concerned is a mild word for that, because you shouldn't forget that the Faroe Islands agreement is still not agreed by the Parliament, and that is for a reason. We hadn't asking to be part of the negotiations. We grant that in the horizon basic regulation, obviously, to the Commission. We want to be consulted on the on the substance of the negotiation. Fine. The problem we have is that we, for once and for all, say yes, it has almost an eternity effect. So what I heard from you is that if the arrangement agreement would be changed, we would yet again in a in a phase where that would be a yes or no. Yet again from the Parliament. How we see. And you had been explaining us the legal day so far. This is not the case. So I would like to specify exactly the worries. And the way we see a violation of our rights is if we agree as co-legislators to an agreement like that, we grant the commission practically the eternity right to renegotiate or whatsoever. And that's the problem. We don't want to be in a negotiation situation. There should be a separation between commission rights and the rights of the parliamentary angle. But what we don't want to to grant is a kind of eternity mandate. And that is not just a question by our legal service that had been also questioned by you or not in a proper manner Laid down.”
  EU political integration
• “On the widening question. I want to be a little bit blunt. Although I had the privilege to write the widening program as a non widening country member, the last time you had been referring that that preferably we not that we are talking about one let's say speed Europe. But I mean how do we reflect that in terms of widening if let's say some countries spend 1% of their GDP on, on on research and others three and a half. And how do we prevent that? Widening money has a lock in effect because you get more money if you spend less in your national program. Or can we find a way to use widening instruments or to interlink widening between national spending and European spending? Because given the fact that 10% of the available money comes from European program and 90% comes from member states program, we might not be able to solve the problem by that. So. But could we find a link? And I don't say that simply to kill the baby in the cradle. It's simply a question we have to answer. And then to Doctor Story. I mean, if we talk about the link between, let's say, the ECF program and the framework program. I mean, even more. Wouldn't there be the question of prioritization and also the question of if you want to link the two instruments and use it in a cumulative way, or have targeted strategic ambitions where you really want to squeeze the innovation process and industrial rollout, or let's say, a sectoral preference, wouldn't we even more need a kind of expert driven way to do that? Because, I mean, I can't imagine that the foreseen governance process, which is more or less making sure that the member states have a saying on just richer and the Commission makes sure that they somehow keep it in their hand, knowing that the process hadn't led to neither an agility of, of course, nor statistically to very specific ones.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “So ladies and gentlemen good morning for the first exchange of views. Um, I mean Horizon Europe is the most renowned research programme worldwide. It might be if it comes, for example, to the ECR, the only program which is internationally internationally known. This is how president von der Leyen described the program on the on the 20th of May last year, when she announced that it would be a self-standing program tightly connected to the European competitiveness. And we might say I congratulate us all together for the effort. After the DG tried to dig the crown jewel that we made the commission find the crown jewel again. Um, the Commission proposed an Horizon Europe that delivered continuity in the structure, a significantly, significantly higher budget and a self-standing legal base in a time where research and innovation are more needed than ever. Generally speaking, the proposal is good. However, the proposal is also unfinished. Too many crucial points are unclear. The most glaring example is the connection of to the ECF and how ECF will be governed. Nobody seems to know how this should be. Work, and it's fairly astonishing if you ask any commissioner for the moment where he would actually be in this ECF governance. You can't find any commissioner. At least I couldn't. Who could tell you this proposal cannot be implemented as proposed. It needs clarification, adjustment and improvement to be made fit for purpose. This means we have to work to do. We have a lot of work to do. The Co-legislator will have to fill in the blanks.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you very much, Mr.. Ladies and gentlemen, for coming to the committee today. I think there's a lot of work ahead in the next years. I mean, we are going to decide, for example, in the next CF, we are have internally discussions with the Commission on the deepening of the European Market. But let me address some of these topics on hydrogen. Your market monitoring report from yesterday stated it very clearly that we missed the installation target of Electrolysers in Europe by 2024, by an astonishing 95%. Renewable hydrogen is too costly. Companies do not switch to renewable hydrogen, investments are stalled and energy intensive industries are moving away. What do you think we can do as European legislators to achieve our H2 targets? What is the national regulators view on that, and what does the European body think specifically? If we look, for example, to the structural body bottlenecks between Spain and France and to the ambition to import hydrogen to Europe and and the overall idea of deepening the market also in terms of a hydrogen backbone in Europe. Second question on the grid package and renewables, another file which is coming to the committee in January. As you are the agency for the Cooperation of National regulators, and you had been highlighting how good it is. But where do you think national regulators should coordinate better? Where are legal opportunities to force member states to cooperate more? But also, what are the limits due to the national circumstances and differences in practices? Last question. On Asia in general, why do you think that TSOs, which we don't necessarily share, have a rather skeptical view on ISO still having in mind the process market coupling reports and bottlenecks? And last reference, and we would appreciate that you carefully listen to the members of this committee had been sending in your advisory board, and we highlight that some of them are even present. Thank you.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “You had another question, and you know that that the Parliament had been really backing up the the ERC, also the independence of the SC, but there is a discussion we we had together with our colleagues a little bit, um, I mean, you had been rightly referring to the, to the framework of peer reviews, which is somehow part of a of a broader review or excellence system in the In the community. On the other hand, there had been voices pretty much saying, yes, but we stay in the conventional by, um, that the peer group somehow is repeating the peer group. So to what extent you have thoughts that at least at points or for pilots or whatever, you open up a little bit for more unconventional pledges, because I think the system has to test that a little bit. And, the discussion is there. It's not just related to the RC. It's generally related to or whether the majority of the school of thought is reproducing the majority of the school of thought in peer group reviews. Is there a discussion ongoing on that issue?”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU
• “Thank you. I don't want because I want to give the colleagues the room for. I just would like to add structurally, Really. I mean, if we negotiate with the ECF, with the one Council and the horizon with the other council. I mean, let's be realistic that there is no clear separation in the proposals so far, and it could be that we're ending up in the horizon with another governance idea than in the ECF. So my plea would be we should really sort our things for the negotiations. We might have six months or seven months time. That's not much time, given that we will write a lot of tests. And I think we had been appealing already to the to the council that they think about a kind of joint procedure, because otherwise I think we will have three separate texts, one from the Parliament, one from the one Council, one from the other council, and that is, from my knowledge, almost unsolvable. So I think procedurally, I think the commission as a mediator should also be part of the effort to sort the process, because otherwise I think things will get very complicated. So having said that, I give the floor to Mr..”
  EU political integration
• “We had been asking. The Parliament has been asking the commission, at least in terms of the freedom of science, because that is covered by the treaties. And to find a more solid basis to protect academic freedom. We do know the court rule on the Central European University, but that was based on trade law and not on the treaties, and that showed us how dangerous that actually is, more specifically coming from Warsaw All and the Holocaust commemoration. Meetings. There we established now formally a European Holocaust research infrastructure. But we learned in the exchange of this formal ceremony how threatened even Holocaust research is in some of the member countries. I don't want to specifically refer to Poland, but we are really worried because we would have thought after the 20th century this is safe territory, but it's no longer the case. And so in more abstract terms, the question of academic freedom, but also protection of the freedom of research for the Holocaust, I think is from our point of view, is an essential horizontal issue. Last question. Um, I think having negotiated now for four times the Program. I think Poland is in the ideal role to prepare also a little bit the discussion on the question of widening and we are going to run in that discussion, be it a statistical one, be it one in practical terms.”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU
• “For the automotive industry, green steel becomes very competitive, attractive, and you create a market. But simply saying by definition, by political decision, someone would have to procure or someone have to buy green steel. That seems to be very problematic. Furthermore, can lead markets for green or low carbon products. Help out our industry in the current competitiveness crisis, knowing that most low carbon production plans will take years to be operational. So I end up I have simply some some questions. The questions are if minimum local content were required for the purchase of batteries, do we accept, for example, that the quality of these batteries might be worse than globally available batteries? I mean, these are all things we really have to consider. So I think we should start up this discussion by by a list of questions. And lastly, lead markets do not tackle any of the underlying structural problems of lacking competitiveness. And this is too high energy costs, high labor costs, slow permitting a fragmented single market and overregulation. And I think we can't compensate that by creating lead markets. We should go to the roots of the problem. Thank you very much.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “On the same side. I think given the global landscape for clean tech industry and manufacturing. Um, we are in a, in a changing situation and it's very challenging. Um, and changing practically from a day to day, um, base, I think it's ever more important that we focus the implementation of net zero because, um, it sends us to or it shows two things a new realism because we need that industry. Um, but even so, the assessment by the commission and the components is probably comprehensive. But I would like to start out by saying that the fundamental issue we have raised with this delegation, with this delegated act, since the presentation of the draft has still not been really solved. And that's the question of primarily used in the methodology that the Commission applies, is defined by the usage ratio of net zero technologies versus other technologies. And we might be challenged even more by what is going to happen in Washington. So we might be excluded from parts of our supply chain. It's a very, very complicated situation to understand in consequence what is going to happen out of all that. And so from my point of view, we shouldn't have that. Theoretical discussion about primary use. We should find simply a solution for that. And the most the most flexible solution we should have I mean, the simple example of.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials
• “Ladies and gentlemen, it might be a little bit of a strange expression, but sometimes I feel that the president of the European Commission is the only man in the room. I mean, what we talk about is and are looking to the council on Thursday. We need a deepening of the European market. We don't have to repair. We don't have to repeat what we had been formulating in the trenches. We don't have to go to this black and white things. I mean, looking to the Greens. I mean, deregulation, a good word. I mean, we want to build a bridge and we have to have simplification. Otherwise we are not going to build bridge. Looking to the socialist is competition shattering the social model? No, but the unions fear you because the unions ask us for jobs and competition, competitiveness and not for ideology and looking to the Council. We have been always strong. When we in the 90s, we had been delivering on our economy by the Common Market. But the Common Market is the free flow of goods, services and capital. And it works just for goods. It doesn't work for services and it doesn't work for capital. So in a way, all what we do repair budgets. Deregulation is all repairing if we would agree independently from the United States. Trump's and so and so if we would agree to deepening this market, that would be the biggest contribution to the European economy. And I ask the Council not to be ideological national hesitant. We have to get our knees together. We have to deepen the market and not repair and not ask for obscure made in Europe, not to ask for more subsidies, not for ask for fear of deregulation. We have to go to the substance. Thank you very much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “But even worse, practically every new initiative which came up in the last term where there was no fresh money, had been practically financed by the framework programme. So, I mean, I like the idea of a Chips act, but whether the Chips act would necessarily be financed out of a research programme. Interesting question. We saw that with the Ukraine facility, with other issues. So we have to be very careful and have a close look at the budget process, because it could be very decisive on a lot of prerogatives of the committee. In this light, it's of utmost importance that we as a committee are working on an opinion on those topics and funds that are closest to us, like horizon, the CEF energy and the Digital Europe programme. The draft opinion presented here today includes wording on all of this. Let me outline the most important points in my draft opinion. We significantly strengthened the wording on R and I, and the role of private and public funding into research, innovation and development in line with the FP ten voted this morning. Here in the Iter, we call for a 3% GDP spending target for R and I in the Union, and for a standalone framework programme with at least €220 billion. And I think it's also really important too. Although, um, it's an appeal to the member states, but to to always refer to the link of national spending and European spending, because in some member states we are more or less compensated by European spending, national cuts.”
  EU research funding
• “So I'm switching committee heads. I think that that the two reports should be aligned. Stemming from the the, let's say, common understanding in the committee on the two reports that specifically the specific program should be an integrated should be part of an integrated negotiation process, because the Commission had been choosing yet again that the specific program is just a consultation process. So there is a common understanding that we put. The main major issue, since so closely related to the to the codecision report into the codecision report. So in a way that is, I think, important because otherwise we would have inconsistencies between the two reports. What is of utmost importance, from my point of view, is that the independence of the IRC, which had been questioned by the Commission yet again, stays. Budgetary, budgetary wise, intact, but also in terms of the institutional setting. And I think that should be a priority for the Parliament, because there are renewed attempts to shorten, for example, the the tenure of the president. Um, so that is, I think, of utmost importance that by the budget and by the definition, the independence of the IRC is prevailed. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Ladies and gentlemen, looking at the competitiveness compass, I think for the first time, we have a tool available which gives us a chance to steer through the storm. We find ourselves in the poster boys of the right. The far right are getting through protectionist. Uh, the subsidies are undermining our competitiveness. We kicked off the Green Deal, which aims for sustainability and protecting the environment. Fair enough. But there's a business case which we don't have here. In order to simplify this competitiveness, in order to slash red tape. Well, that's all fair enough. But there is a psychological not a purely economic aspect to this. There is a too much regulation, and that's a burden on companies as I see it, we must ensure that in implementing existing rules, we must already tread carefully. Carefully. We have so-called Low Carbon Delegated Act in place. These provisions run against the grain of economic prosperity. So let's keep a keen eye on what our goals actually are. We must urgently answer the question as to what we are talking about in terms of competitiveness, competitiveness. Are we talking about competitiveness or issues of sovereignty? We must establish whether we need to stock up capacities, as we did with the Chips act and the Raw Materials Act, and we have to look into what really is, um, competitiveness. This means the competitiveness and productivity of industry. We've taken a first the first steps in this direction. At long last, we've laid down provisions for reducing transaction costs. Eliminated barriers to entering the market. Fair enough, but I'd like to issue a warning. There's this wishful thinking of a super compact funds, centrally managed, super tall structure. European industry. This is something which we in the EPP cannot rally behind.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “It's interesting. I mean, if you look to the statistics, just 9% of the VC capital in Europe goes to VC, a women led VCs. And it's interesting that in Europe we are lacking statistics on that. Whereas if we look to the microcredits in Africa we have good statistics. And the interesting thing is that you can see a clear discrimination of women. It's not just a question of one gender equality, it's a question of discrimination, of success. The return rate on microcredits for women in Africa is below is beyond 90%. Where is the return rate for men is just 70%. And if you see that the accumulated GDP is usually much higher for the broader society by micro-credits given to women than to men. So you clearly can say in terms of a foreign credit granting system, it's not a question of gender equality, it's a matter of discrimination, and it's a discrimination to the, to the disadvantage of of the intention of programs like that in Europe. Interestingly, um, we don't have so much statistics in terms of the success rate of return. And I think a starting point is that we would really, um, have more precise figures and we go against discrimination because gender equality is in economic terms. I mean, it's plausible because we are we are we are not using the potential talent, but in economic terms, you know, the plausibility of that would be that we have a closer perception of the return rate and the and the success of the original intention. And what we see in tendency. But they're not is are not a solid figure base that female run entrepreneur, female enterprises who get whatever kind of credit we see capital are statistically more successful than the capital driven by man. So in a way, it is not a gender equality question. It is also a question of discrimination. And by that counterproductive to the intention of the capital market.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “To what extent? If you would go to change these arrangements, the Parliament would yet again have a saying, as the other co-legislator to agree on that or not. And that's in substance the issue. And if I understand you correctly, you had been saying if the arrangement agreement would be changed, there would be yet another time. A yes and no. That is now how we read it. That is not how the exhibition is. The commission had been explaining the legal basis so far. And that would be precisely my question, because we we are willing to consent. We don't have an interest to get into negotiations. We want to be informed. But if an agreement would be changed, the Parliament would have yet again a yes or no. And this is not the case. So if you would now say this is the case, that would be the first time. Interesting. Um, that would change our. But then we would like to have that in written. But so far this is not true. And I want just to explain to colleagues, when you had been asking questions, you know, what is the proper nationality of the money allocated. So if the arrangement would be changed, we say for yes and forever we agree and leave the mandate to the Commission. We never ever again next Parliament would have a way to if the arrangement would be completely changed, um, we would be consulted by then agreeing or not agreeing on these substantial changes. So it would be nice if you could clarify that.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Actually, some of you had been already answering my my question. Um, specifically your last intervention. Um, but I would like to go a little bit deeper in the methodology. The the European single market is not yet completed that we know. Um, we are investing at the EU level in terms of, let's say, the instruments into this physical cross-border a to be B projects under ZF, which had been permanently under financed. Um and the trade energy across borders is still very limited. So we didn't fulfill our deepening the the energy market. So um, this coordinating of the European grids in the ten year spans, including cross border, also seems to be not perfectly working as you had been outlined. But still, what do you believe? How that would work? So what would we do? We would need now the super regulatory authority on the European level, do we need a more mandatory coordination between the 27 and agencies? Because for us, I mean, we we have to to get concrete and it's not definitely an either or but some somehow is. So do we need more regulatory oversight. Then my second question would be, um, the European Commission is planning to propose a European Competitiveness Fund, and we all stare at that, although nobody actually know what it is.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “And having in mind that this pretended prioritization by four windows in the ECF is underpinned by actually over a 60 objectives and 141 instruments. So in a way, I mean, doesn't need parameterization. Um, and the cumulative way of funding in a modern way as it is done in companies, but as it is done, I mean, for example, in the philanthropic world by by Jedi also doesn't even more need a more intelligent, more, let's say, put it stakeholder driven, more agile way of doing that instead of this static working program calls vaguely defined with a lot of participants and less money. I'm not advocating that we now do very small consortiums, but to do very big consortiums and spend not enough money for all of them. I might not be also a way for targeted investment in certain areas where there is industry interest. So that would be my my really practical question. And the other one is not malicious, but I just would like to understand how you see on the widening the correlation between national spending and and spending on the European level.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you. First of all, Madam President, good that you're here. And I think that what you had been kindly referring to this morning, which was a practically unanimous vote on this committee's report highlighting the role of the ERC, sets the tone because I think it's, um, shared by the majority of that parliament. And you're going to see that also in the amendments on the annual framework. Um, we are supposed to send in a few days here from the committee. Um, my question is a little bit, um, looking ahead. I think we made clear that this kind of permanent needle stitches we are, um, we had to, Um, see, over the time from the Commission in terms of the independence of, of of the IRC, there's substantially repelled. But I mean, in the end, I will remember, you see my grey hair, the beginning of the discussion of the IRC, and to some extent, we agreed then that the current status of the IRC would be, um, a one we are going to start, but in the end it's the question what? Where's this GRC going to go? So my first question is, although I know it's a little bit of a dance around the issue, um, but since we're discussing that also with the EIC, I mean, there is um, thoughts, um, made and discussed about whether the EIC finally should be an independent union body.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “But also the Green Deal is not working. We don't have an energy market in Europe. We don't have the infrastructure in Europe. We don't have a capital market in Europe. We don't have a market on on insolvency harmonisation. So even practical things. So my question to the commission and discussion, we should start. First of all, I think we we should reiterate and get an overview on the state of play of the internal market. So the the figures are almost ten years old. And I think that the commission should yes, on the one hand, have that strategy to keep the markets open, to have a negotiating strategy quite practically with the Americans, although it might change from day to day. But the question which is really in our hand is how to deepen the internal market. That's the question. Now we have to overcome this idea. Too complicated in Europe. Let's go global. And my question is a little bit what are the considerations of of the commission. I'm well aware that's just the starting point. The commission might not be able to answer today, but we do believe that we need in intensive discussion about the potential of the deepening of the internal market of the European Union. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “So welcome to the committee. We very much welcome the new agreement with Switzerland and the Swiss participation in our union programmes deliberately once, which this is concerned with. I think it's a testament to the willingness of the Union and Swiss Federation to maintain the deep ties of friendship, and that these political commitments will ease collaboration between European and Swiss researchers specifically, and companies which should be mutually strengthened to our competitiveness. It's a pity that it took so long to come to a deal, but we all know the political reasons for that. So let's be clear. We welcome the Swiss agreement, but. What we do not welcome is, again the structure of the agreement on Swiss participation to the union programmes. It is against expecting the parliament to give a blank check. It's again expecting the Parliament to give a blank check to the Commission and the Council to decide on associations without any role of the Parliament. In May 21st, with the adoption of the Horizon Europe, the Parliament adopted a statement cautioning the commission against shutting the Parliament out of the future association of countries in the famous category D. Since then, the Commission has proposed, negotiated and signed agreements with the Faroe Islands, New Zealand, Canada and South Korea. Now we add Switzerland to that list of negotiations with Japan negotiating ongoing.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Um, I'm sorry that I that I asked you in yet again, concretely. I mean, my gray hair shows that I 20 years ago I was rapporteur for the service directive. And then, um, the challenge were that France and Italy were not exchanging ski instructors because France and Italy said that snow in Italy, in France that is different, or that the Germans would say that without a German, no tie, you can't buy property, whereas then the British ten till 1066 had been somehow purchasing property without that profession. So in a way that is a discussion for 20 years. I mean, what what we are going to do if all these guidances are not going to work as it had been 20 years ago, so do we go more robust? That would be my first question yet again. And then yet again on the infrastructure question. Services are much more related today to infrastructure we don't have, even in Europe, 50 gigabyte net potential. That is half of that. What you have in mountain regions in Korea. So in a way, the question is services are related to infrastructure in Europe. The RF didn't bring us anything on that. It didn't raise the potential. So my question yet again, is it worth considering in the next MFF that we beyond the CEF, which was an under financed instrument, we think about substantially investing in the digital infrastructure energy infrastructure to enable literally the services and then think about exchanging services in Europe, because I think without that enabling, we are falling in global terms way back in relation to our competitors. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you very much, colleagues, for the impressive and very agile work. I mean, the question for us in in in practical term and perspective is that we are now already negotiating the ECF, so the framework of the next defense program. And the question is a little bit what kind of conclusions we are going to draw since the time for the deadline for amendments had been already ended. So in a way, I think we have to have an intelligent idea for an integrative approach in our then final finally formulating, the the position of the of the parliament because somehow although we are acting fast, but somehow we are disconnected because agile will be finished, actually practically at the same time where we're hopefully going to finish the final compromises for the EPV position of the defense fund. And I think we we have to find a solution how I mean, it doesn't make sense if you have a a position on agile, and then it's not translated, for for our position in the defense program. 2 issues I would like to raise. 1 issue is the lump sum issue. I think it it sounds plausible, but we have to be aware there are certain restriction in terms of budget control because it's really a challenge for budget control. And secondly, we learned in a lot of other programs, but also specifically there, there is a lot of institutions, and that is why I'm backing some miss mister Farsky's position. There are a lot of institutions which actually can't do lump sums. For example, a lot of RTOs. So, institutes research institutes related to that fence, There are legal obli restrictions to that. So I think to have a proposal saying we want to have lump sums, it is a proper instrument, but we don't reduce that to lump sums because then we exclude institutions which simply for for for their national, legal setting can't do that. So I think we have to it sounds so good lump sum and not to exclude the ones who can't use lump sums. And secondly, the question is in terms of what are the partnerships. And so far, we have a relatively restrictive position from the ZD Committee on that. It more or less is Ukraine, Liechtenstein and Norway. But if you look for really the hot issues, for example, our cooperation on cryptology with with Canada is almost unavoidable. So we should be aware that we have a kind of we need to have a coherent position on the, association to the defense program and then also to the r and d schemes because it doesn't make sense if that differs between the defense program and the research part. Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on defence
• “Just just to clarify my question. I mean, it's what we want to exclude is that you changed. The agreements by protocol because we now grant you that, yes. If you principally. Change the agreement, then it would needed the consent. But what is included in the legal base, how you're doing that? Is that you and the council could, by protocol, change the arrangement, and then the Parliament would be out. So either you would pretty much say no. We reassure you that we don't change. Agreements by protocol. And then forever you're going to change the agreements by protocols. And forever we are out. So just precisely I mean, if you change the agreement in principle, we do know that you would need the consent of the Parliament, but as it had been the habit. That you're changing the agreements by protocol. Then the Parliament is out. And that is what we precisely would like to know.”
  EU political integration
• “And you have to stand. We have to know what's going to happen in the defense area. Medical uses, aerospace uses. How how are those sectors of the economy going to deal with, uh, radical prohibition because you're actually endangering the the health of patients in hospitals if you have a radical prohibition. And what about, uh, fire protection on ships and tanks? Do you think soldiers and sailors would rather, uh, burn to death and have that protection? So if you just say if you start questioning the design of the study, we are addressing what you have been ignoring, that where you have this amazing idea that this can all be replaced tomorrow by magic. No, we're looking at the key industries and saying, what's going to happen? What are the competitive risks? In which areas are we not in yet capable of finding adequate substance? That was the study. So I think it's I completely object to what is being insinuated here that these people were doing these studies in, in in saying they're somehow dependent. The people doing the studies are dependent on the, on the business sector. No, you don't want to look at the economic impact of a radical prohibition. I think you have to openly then prove that there's been some kind of an impact on this study. You can't just sort of vaguely hint about bias. We have asked to have a a very limited study on the economic impact of the prohibition. And I think you have a very differentiated, balanced, realistic study being produced Because you're dealing with questions that the Greens never have ever addressed.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “So let me explain the EPP position. Your policy completely failed you. Hydrogen strategy target was six gigawatt electrolyzers by 2040 by 2024. We have currently not even three gigawatt under construction in Europe. We are closely have 0.6GW electrolyzers in operation. I coming from an S&D breakfast, none of the European steel companies have hydrogen contract neither to sufficient prices nor in the dimension of supply. The hydrogen bank you're referring to. That 1.7 billion was given out already in green hydrogen projects, 614 million are given back by projects. Your blank. You would right now not reach even 60% of the hydrogen, which we would need for 2030. And your notorious unit is the reason for that. You make hydrogen overcomplicated that you refer to the industry that they exacted a delegated act is a lie. If we wouldn't have forced you in the Strasbourg week at least to make compromises, you would have gotten a no from the council and gotten a no from Parliament. And the question is what you're going to do? What are you going to tell the steel industry, the chemical industry? I mean, this mumbling around of the potentials and so on. And so you're failing. You're not going to deliver. And I say that clearly here. And that will be also the discussion with Mrs. Christopher and your commissioner.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “I mean, Norway, Switzerland, they want to know they wanted to invest in an in a research program, and now they learn that there will be later on a blurry governance structure which is deciding on the main pillar of research. So that is not welcomed. But secondly, we would reiterate not the wish but the, the, the, the principal argument of the Parliament that if we engage in third party agreements, you know, and then the third party's agreements are changed. We want to have a saying a yes or no. It can't be that we ask that we are asked to consent on a third party contribution contribution. And this is then for eternity. I've never seen something like that. And so in a way, if things are changing, the commission can choose either to make an offer in terms of the legal basis, or are we going to write that in the regulation simply? So having said that, I think, um, I'm really looking forward to a close cooperation. I see the flavors and interests of groups. I don't want to muddle everything together, but I think that we conveyed today a strong message to the commission, but also specifically to the Council, that this Parliament is very much united and that we're not going to accept is that every problem, every insecurity, every blurry sentence, which is not to be answered by the Commission, is transferred to an unforeseeable future, to a governance Nobody can explain this won't be accepted by that Parliament. Thank you very much.”
  EU political integration
• “There is an abstract expertise on hydrogen, but in practical terms we make it overly complicated. And we said that clearly as EPP, we want to stick to the CO2 reduction but without a ramp up of hydrogen. It's not going to work and it's not going to work if you're ideologically or theologically driven things, always saying, we want to have the most ideal production base and that would be green hydrogen. We will depend on grey, basically on blue and every kind of hydrogen we get together. Otherwise the transformation process in the combustion industry are going to fail. So my question is how do you see that? I mean, is it really plausible that we are announcing another methodology in two years from now? Is it really plausible that that we are we are still lacking an idea, although it had been announced for the end of last year on the on the question of of of um, because I mean, it is not an isolated delegated act. It is a signal to the markets. And the markets are telling us, okay, it had been better. Okay. There is a certain plausibility that at least there is a security of, uh, of, of of, of the framework conditions. But we are going to wait for the next, uh, methane regulation because we're not going to invest now. And the question is, do you believe that that what you have promised leads to a dramatic ramp up in a situation where we are we know five years from now we are missing the six gigawatt, um, we had been, um, set as, uh, in our own or your own commission strategy. What? What is your reply to that?”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “Honourable executive Vice-President. I tried to be quick 90s for the single market. Um, I would deliberately look to the services market in Europe. I mean, in the annual survey. The figures are shocking. Intra-eu trade in services is set at 7.6%, which is equivalent to the services trade we do globally. I mean, you could arguably say there is no service market in Europe actually. So we had been we had initiatives, the Balkans Time directive and so on. So but for 20 years practically nothing happened. So my my question going in that direction, if you see the the potential of that, do you think that when you had been formulating that the Commission is going to issue guidance, recommendations and things like that? Um, that is actually enough. And what we are going to do if member states yet again for 20 years or even in upcoming time is not actually reacting on that. And secondly, my question is related to the infrastructure question. So far, it was a theoretical discussion about deepening the market. But the services market will be a digital market that is different than 20 years ago, and that is related to the question of infrastructure in Europe. So my question would be, on the one hand, what you're going to do if member states are not reacting as they had been doing for 20 years on guidances. Secondly, in terms of infrastructure, wouldn't it be wise, as EPP had been suggesting, that in the next MFF, next to a competitiveness programme, we have something like an internal market facility dealing with the infrastructure shortcomings, because digitally the interconnectors, but also in the energy markets, we have an infrastructure problem related to that services market and its potential. So that would be my two questions. When we do go rough and what do we do with the underlying infrastructure questions related to that? Thank you very much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Um, looking a little bit at the global perspective, I mean, um, I think the ERC grant is one of the few instruments which are seen or have perceived even globally as, to some extent, a comparative edge for Europe. Now, Mr. Hayter's report had been referring to the idea of a Choose Europe programme, which is a little bit of harbouring research which might get under pressure in the United States. So my question is twofold. First of all, I mean, you had been referring to the inflation rate, but I mean, it would be also interesting to understand for us. Um, I mean, what ERC grants in comparison to the, to the competitors specifically in the United States, if you go to MIT or to Stanford or wherever. Um, so first of all, is that still comparable? Are there other instruments in comparison to ours? But secondly, I mean, we are we are. We are looking at this. Choose Europe a little bit from this angle. Okay. We are the safe haven of the deprived of a political change in the United States. But I think in the end, someone in Miami or wherever will look for excellence even in that field. But could you imagine that within the URC there is an instrument or a dedication for this choice in Europe. I mean, this is a more general question, but also a dedicated one, because why shouldn't we use that momentum to some extent?”
  EU research funding
• “(09:23:31 – 09:26:27): Thank you very much, colleagues, for the impressive and very agile work. I mean, the question for us in in in practical term and perspective is that we are now already negotiating the ECF, so the framework of the next defense program. And the question is a little bit what kind of conclusions we are going to draw since the time for the deadline for amendments had been already ended. So in a way, I think we have to have an intelligent idea for an integrative approach in our then final finally formulating, the the position of the of the parliament because somehow although we are acting fast, but somehow we are disconnected because agile will be finished, actually practically at the same time where we're hopefully going to finish the final compromises for the EPV position of the defense fund. And I think we we have to find a solution how I mean, it doesn't make sense if you have a a position on agile, and then it's not translated, for for our position in the defense program. 2 issues I would like to raise. 1 issue is the lump sum issue. I think it it sounds plausible, but we have to be aware there are certain restriction in terms of budget control because it's really a challenge for budget control. And secondly, we learned in a lot of other programs, but also specifically there, there is a lot of institutions, and that is why I'm backing some miss mister Farsky's position. There are a lot of institutions which actually can't do lump sums. For example, a lot of RTOs. So, institutes research institutes related to that fence, There are legal obli restrictions to that. So I think to have a proposal saying we want to have lump sums, it is a proper instrument, but we don't reduce that to lump sums because then we exclude institutions which simply for for for their national, legal setting can't do that. So I think we have to it sounds so good lump sum and not to exclude the ones who can't use lump sums. And secondly, the question is in terms of what are the partnerships. And so far, we have a relatively restrictive position from the ZD Committee on that. It more or less is Ukraine, Liechtenstein and Norway. But if you look for really the hot issues, for example, our cooperation on cryptology with Canada is almost unavoidable. So we should be aware that we have a kind of we need to have a coherent position on the, association to the defense program and then also to the r and d schemes because it doesn't make sense if that differs between the defense program and the research part. Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on defence
• “In January 24th, the European Parliament adopted as a body another resolution on this matter, which is expressed, disagrees with the new structure of international agreements that does not allow the Parliament to exercise its power in line with article 218. A of the Tfeu believes that it is an impediment to the fulfilment of the Parliament's prerogative, neglects the required institutional balance, thus needs to be modified. We could not have been clearer, but with that in mind, I would like to ask the Commission what it says about democracy in the European Union that we execute is that the executive is simply ignoring a very clear position of the representatives of the people, and don't hide behind the council because you put the negotiation directive on the table and did so. Knowing that the Parliament does would not consent to the outcome of the negotiation more precisely. You lied to the Parliament in the negotiation on horizon, on third parties, on third country agreement, and we will shut that door in the next horizon programme. We will grant you no flexibility at all, and we will end all agreements by the regulation. If you go on like that, and EPP is considering to go to the court and you should start taking that seriously.”
  EU political integration
• “Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I speak in German. It's 100 days since the arrival of the new commission. And clearly the Commission is delivering under the heading competitiveness. Today, the Commissioner is talking about something that we've been calling for for five years. And it's this issue. What is the business case for the Green Deal? 14,000 pages of regulations, 900 delegated acts before us. And now we are looking at the business case for the European economy on a cross-party basis. We may have difficult discussions and people may get into ideological silos, and there may be conflicts that we have to grapple with. How do we deal with the trilemma when we're looking at competitiveness, climate protection, the environment, sustainability? How are we going to address the needs of European citizens, our economic base? We're going to need to move beyond our ideological silos, and we're going to have to discuss standards. We have these 14,000 pages, 900 delegated acts. We need to implement them in such a way that we don't throttle European economies. But at the same time, we mustn't lose sight of climate change. We'll need to give up on rhetorical positions. We need to give ground to each other. Otherwise, the competitiveness of European business and the lack of competitiveness is going to undermine all of the goals that we have, however different they are for people, for environment, for climate protection, for the economy, for our small businesses. We won't achieve all of those goals together because the economic competitiveness is the basis for European sovereignty, for our societies, for our geopolitical role and also our security. So that is why I call on the commission to implement this. There is no one fits all. We need sectoral talks. We shouldn't just be talking about business but with business and that on an ongoing basis. We need different ways to regulate, to implement things from what we've done in the past. If the clean industrial deal is a first step in that direction, it's the right step. But it's just a first step.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU