Inese VAIDERE

Policy topics Inese VAIDERE is active on

What Inese VAIDERE has said (17)

• 2026-02-06 “P-000488/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission Cosmetics are composed of chemical substances and irrespective of whether they are of natural origin or manufactured, they must be safe, and the safety of the final cosmetic product must be assessed by a qualified assessor. The testing must be documented to enable the responsible person to demonstrate the compliance with the safety requirements and, in case of the occurrence of the undesirable effect, to detect the cause of the problem. The Commission is currently carrying out the evaluation of the Cosmetics Regulation 1 . It will assess whether the current rules are effective, efficient, relevant and coherent as well as whether the EU level requirements add value. The evaluation will also examine the effects of the Regulation on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and their competitiveness. The Commission recognises the importance of SMEs and artisans for the EU economy and aims to ensure that EU legislation is implementable for SMEs. If the evaluation demonstrates that the current rules are overly burdensome for small, local enterprises, the Commission will consider if they could be simplified without jeopardising consumers’ health. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02009R1223-20250901.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU · EU competences on consumer protection and product standards
• 2025-03-21 “P-001208/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission proposal referred to by the Honourable Member 1 aims at gradually phasing out the EU’s dependence on Russian nitrogen-based fertilisers through a transitional approach. This involves measured annual increases of customs duties on Russian imports over a period of three years, minimising the risk of a surge in fertiliser prices. The Commission expects the measure to result in a gradual and orderly replacement of Russian nitrogen-based fertilisers with alternatives, including domestically produced ones, thus contributing to fair competition in the EU fertilisers market and supporting a stable, long-term role of the EU fertilisers industry in ensuring the EU food security. The proposal mandates the Commission to monitor nitrogen-based fertiliser prices. The Commission will continue assessing the situation and take appropriate measures to prevent the price increase. These measures may include, among others, proposing the temporary suspension of tariffs on affected goods imported from sources other than Russia and Belarus. The Commission is not proposing to modify customs duties on imports from Russia of other products. The Commission would like to note that some of the products referred to by the Honourable Member are already subject to import restrictions as part of the sanctions adopted following Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine under Regulation 833/2014 2 , in particular potash fertilisers and crustaceans. Any decision to impose or amend these sanctions is for the Council to take by unanimity. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2025)34&lang=en 2 Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/833/2025-02-25”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU · EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports · EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you, Bernd, thank you very much. So as the standing rapporteur for Russia, I have meanwhile organized two monitoring group meetings on Russia. The first on 18th February, focused on the current trade relations with Russia and the Commission proposal to impose new tariffs on fertilisers and agricultural products imports. And I am rapporteur on this file. So while I believe it should have come much sooner, the proposal to increase tariffs for fertilisers is welcomed. In my opinion it is a balanced compromise and I really hope that this will be adopted without delays to enter into force by 1st of July this year. In the second monitoring group meeting, which again with the participation with European Commission, took place two weeks ago on 4th March, we held an exchange of views with the Commission on the latest 16th sanctions package against Russia and the circumvention and enforcement of the current sanctions. It is clear that the EU economic sanctions against Russia are effective and they are working. However, they are not yet covering all sectors. And I would finally like to add that I also hope soon to see some European countries to make the right decisions and end their dependence on Russian natural gas, just to stop EU money flowing into the Russian war budget into the Russian war machine, which is hard issue. Thank you.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you very much. Dear colleagues, on the 9th of December, together with colleagues Anna Cavazzini and Corinne Carlsberg, we hosted a joint meeting of investment policy Together Russia and Ukraine monitoring groups. The aim of the very timely, probably a little bit too late discussion, was to focus on the individuals and companies increasingly using the bilateral investment treaties and investor state dispute settlement mechanisms to challenge sanctions that are adopted in response to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Actually, it was a pretty complicated legal discussion, and sometimes I got an impression that The lawyers lose the forest behind the trees. So we heard that a growing number of cases against member states have already been launched, with claims amounting to billions of euros. While it's unlikely winning these claims would mean risking that EU taxpayers end up indirectly compensating sanctioned investors. The meeting explored possible defences and countermeasures, and discussed ways to make sanctions packages more resistance to arbitration claims. Many of these bilateral investment treaties were concluded decades ago and were not designed for today's geopolitical reality. And the question is and remains, how could it be that they are still in place today? I hope to see the Commission to come up with proposals on how to terminate these bilateral investment treaties with Russia, which are really danger for our companies. Thank you.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Dear colleagues, for the first time in European history, the European Union is going to end imports of Russian energy. It is a real turning point in European energy policy. Phasing out of Russian gas is a great achievement for the European Union, a truly historical step. I would like to sincerely thank Commissioner Jurgensen for his initiative and determination. The Danish Presidency for engagement and of course, my co-rapporteur, Mr. Niinisto, with whom we had an excellent cooperation for his hard work and a great team of the shadow rapporteurs whose constructive support made this result possible. The European Parliament put forward a strong and legally sound position, but not all member states were ready to move with the same level of ambition. Parliament insisted, and we succeeded, that Europe must end its dependency on Russian gas as soon as possible. We delivered earlier phase out deadlines for Russian gas. Then the Commission originally proposed. The Council resisted, but Parliament stood firm. We also secured a special provision on harmonised penalties. Without enforceable penalties, no phase out would be credible and we tightened safeguards to prevent a circumvention. Russian gas must not return to Europe, also through illegal ways. At the same time, we made it simple for trusted partner countries to import gas into the union. They must not face bureaucratic burdens. It will pave the way for friendly countries to supply Europe with necessary gas.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you very much. Today I will present our joint message. So, unfortunately, Mr. Niinisto couldn't be with us, so. And we have really worked relentlessly on this item, uh, to, uh, on this really historical, uh, file on phasing out Russian natural gas and oil imports. So, as you recall, Parliament's report was adopted with an overwhelming majority across political groups. And the mandate for Trilogues was endorsed in the same strong spirit. And thanks again, colleagues, for your constant support. The Parliament's main objective is to ban Russian oil and gas imports as soon as possible, and to close any possible loopholes that Russia could exploit and undermine our energy security. In the first trilogue, we chose to focus on four main priorities of Parliament. First, the extension of the ban to cover also oil. As a Parliament decided earlier phase out date from proposed 2028 to 2027, inclusion of penalties, deletion of suspension clause and in addition, the council wished to discuss an article on enforcement. The negotiations will not be easy and there were not easy in the first trialogue. So far, the council showed no real willingness to compromise. The Danish presidency is very motivated to reach the agreement, but there are quite a few member states that do not realize that the sooner we stop funding Russia's war in Ukraine, the safer entire Europe, including their citizens, will be the first priority. Discussed was the phase out dates the commission proposed stopping new imports of Russian gas from the start of next year, and fully banning existing pipeline and LNG contracts by January 2028. The Parliament's position is a full phase out by 1st January 2027. One year earlier than the council would like to.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you very much. And thank you very much, Commissioner, for your excellent presentation. I welcome this proposal to phase out all Russian gas imports through a formal legislative act. And it's a long awaited and essential part of the Repower EU plan. Russia has proven itself as an unreliable partner. It uses energy not only for trade but also for manipulation. For more than two decades already. This must come to an end. The European Parliament has consistently called for a full stop of Russian energy imports, starting with our resolution on 1st of March 2022. And most recently in the report on security of Energy Supply, adopted last week. As the Versailles Declaration shows, this is also a shared priority of the member states. The commission proposal sets a vital principle the European Union must not depend on unreliable suppliers, namely Russia. Stable energy supply is key to our competitiveness and security. The proposal for regulation moves us towards a full phase out of Russian energy. I support is a strong starting point. Together with my co-rapporteur Mr. Niinistö. We have submitted an explanatory statement outlining areas where we believe the proposal can be strengthened. Let me highlight a few priorities. First, we need a more ambitious deadlines. The date for ending long term contracts should be set earlier. This can be achieved without driving up prices or creating supply shortages. Global LNG supply is expanding rapidly, while in long term the EU gas demand is in steady decline. As a result, only a small part of the current Russian imports will need to be replaced. I trust member states and the Commission are already working to secure a diverse and reliable supply.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Dear colleagues, Commissioner Jorgensen, housing is a sense of security, a foundation of family life and also economic issue. Problems in member states are greatly different. While short term rental is a problem in Southern Europe, different problems are different in Baltic states. The housing stock built during the Soviet occupation. It is difficult for people to buy their first home because banks requirements are too stringent. Heating bills is in. Poorly insulated buildings are a heavy burden for senior citizens and families. Housing is the responsibility of member states and one size fits for all will not work. That we acknowledge in our report. But there are solutions. We have to invest in renovation and energy efficiency and improve state aid rules. Secondly, we have to supply affordable housing by building new homes and using empty buildings and broad land areas in accordance with the principles of sustainability and new powerhouse. We also need to use European Investment Platform, a European investment bank. We have to cut red tape because it prolongs implementation of projects. And we have to invest in regions because Europe's eastern border regions are important for security.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “Dear colleagues, Commissioner Jorgensen, housing is a sense of security, a foundation of family life and also economic issue. Problems in member states are greatly different. While short term rental is a problem in Southern Europe, different problems are different in Baltic states. The housing stock built during the Soviet occupation. It is difficult for people to buy their first home because banks requirements are too stringent. Heating bills is in. Poorly insulated buildings are a heavy burden for senior citizens and families. Housing is the responsibility of member states and one size fits for all will not work. That we acknowledge in our report. But there are solutions. We have to invest in renovation and energy efficiency and improve state aid rules. Secondly, we have to supply affordable housing by building new homes and using empty buildings and broad land areas in accordance with the principles of sustainability and new powerhouse. We also need to use European Investment Platform, a European investment bank. We have to cut red tape because it prolongs implementation of projects. And we have to invest in regions because Europe's eastern border regions are important for security.”
  EU housing policy
• “Commissioner. Dear colleagues, already for 20 years, Russia is using the natural gas supply as an instrument for political blackmail. Moreover, since the 24th of February 2022, each euro paid by Europe to Russia is turned into a bullet, a drone or a tank for killing people in Ukraine. Since the beginning of the war, the EU member states have collectively paid two more than €220 billion to Russia for energy supplies. That equals the amount that is spent by Russia for the massacres in Ukraine. The EU has to immediately put a stop to all Russian gas, oil and nuclear fuel imports. Russia is not a reliable partner and never will be. It is both a political and a moral duty for us. Thank you to the Commission for the draft legislative proposal. However, the newly adopted EPP resolution presents a much stricter position already on the 1st of January 2027, we would like to introduce a ban on any Russian gas and oil import, including imports from third countries. And in addition, such ban cannot be suspended under any circumstances. Unfortunately, the position of the member states is much weaker. It stipulates a ban only for gas and only starting with 2028. Also granting unjustified derogations to Hungary and Slovakia, even though these two do have alternative supply channels. I call on the council to respect the position of the European Parliament that was adopted with overwhelming majority. This is a turning point in the EU's energy policy. We will relentlessly defend the position. Europe has to act decisively and courageously. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “And now there are some signals that stubborn council position could be a little bit made milder or something like that because they want still this 1st of January 2028 on article 15. You know this is a very important article because it means that never again, never again return to Russian gas. If we delete this article because it was foreseen that in some circumstances this we could return. But we. This is a strong position of Parliament of all political groups, except on two, except on two groups. So this is key priority to delete this possibility to return to Russian gas. And. Or the second option for never again is to make this situation. If there would be some cases to allow to return to Russian gas, that these circumstances must be so strong that never again from that side. So, uh, yes. On oil, uh, we agreed that, uh, The commission could make a statement, but it's still under the question mark how it will be regulated. So now, of course, we hope very much on this trilogue tonight. But as I said, there will be drama. How drama will finish. Who knows because there are so many questions to solve and so many compromises to have. So let's see, let's see. But we are very committed with Mr. Niinisto and our shadows are standing behind us. Let's see how Parliament, how how the council will be reacting to our strong position. Let's see. But we are ready also for some innocent compromises. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “I would like to see what more can be done to help European SMEs. Rapporteur also mentioned it to access the Canadian markets. What tools could be offered? You mentioned mentioned information. That's very important. Probably something else as well. And we also have seen the clear example of rising European agricultural exports and Canada's recognition of European geographical indications. However, there is still important work to be done to tackle other remaining issues market barriers and quotas. I know how complicated agriculture is because I'm working now on fertilizers and then duties, etc. but we have to help our farmers and at the same time, free trade would be also very important. And I hope to see that the EU and Canada relationship is further integrated, and that all member states would move forward with full ratification of the agreement, especially in the light of global trade tensions and the need for strong economic partnership. I liked very much your suggestion about what Canada would be agreed on reconstruction of Ukraine after the war. I suggest probably Canada could help also. Now to Ukraine because western areas are pretty peaceful and there the people need houses, etc. probably this could be also the moment to develop. I see there's a lot of work and I'm really happy to work with the commission and with you together, so thank you very much.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “After strong pressure from this House, the Commission has now made a clear political commitment to present a similar legislative proposal on phasing out Russian oil. Also, oil revenues fund the Kremlins war machine, and both oil and gas imports must be stopped. Colleagues, we must speak honestly. Russia has never been a reliable partner. It manipulated gas flows to weaken governments and destabilise markets, most dramatically before invading Ukraine. Energy and aggression in this case are intertwined. No one should claim business is business when energy is used as a weapon. The good news is Europe has alternatives. Over the past two years, firstly, the EU gas demand has been falling. Secondly, our gas supply has become far more diversified. And thirdly, the LNG supplies are rapidly increasing. The argument that we cannot replace Russian gas is not true. We can and we already have. This regulation is not just an energy or trade file. It is a political, economic and moral decision. Since the full scale war began, the EU has paid over EUR 216 billion for Russian fossil energy. We still pay around €40 million every day and every euro continues to fund the killings in Ukraine. Strikingly, Europe has paid more to Russia than we have collectively given to Ukraine in support. Tomorrow, when we vote, the parliament has to send a historical message. Russian gas. Never again. Thank you.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Second, I welcome the Commission proposal to extend the national diversification plans to oil imports. But I would also like to ask the Commissioner, why does the proposal not include a formal phaseout of Russian oil and oil derivatives? These are my two priorities are consistent with the Parliament's position in the report of Security of Energy Supply, which calls for an EU wide ban on all Russian natural gas imports by 2027 at the latest, and urges all member states to phase out oil imports by the same date. Third, the regulation must be robust and legally sound. We must protect European companies that will have to cancel their long term contracts. And I would like to ask the commissioner two questions. Do you agree that the stronger the legal basis of force majeure, the better we shield our companies from legal risks? And secondly, in this regard, do you foresee any challenges with the emergency brake in article 15? Could it potentially become a loophole that weakens the regulations impact? Finally, this proposal is a top priority. It's essential that the regulation enters into force on 1st January 2026 to meet that goal. We have also set a short deadline for amendments, but the proposal was published a month ago, so everyone interested had enough time to review it. Let me end on a personal note. Colleagues. Although this proposal is about energy and trade, we must also stop using European money to finance Russia's war machine, which kills Ukrainians every day. Thank you very much and I look forward to your contributions. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “It is important to stress that by adopting our position, the EU strip Kremlins war machine from an additional €29 billion in revenue. 29 billion Parliament's position under the latest sanctions regime. The LNG imports have been banned from 1st January 2027. Yet the council has demonstrated no willingness to move forward. The date for the phase out of the pipeline. Pipeline. Gas. We have requested a detailed impact assessment from the Commission. The second priority discussed in the first trilogue was the Parliament's proposal to extend the scope of this ban to cover also crude oil and petroleum product imports. These imports are currently banned under the sanction regime for all except three countries. The Parliament seeks to make this ban permanent from Parliament's point of view. There is no legal or technical reason why the regulation should not include an import ban of all Russian fossil fuels. There is enough of evidence for Russia's market manipulation of both gas and oil supplies. The inclusion of oil is sensitive for the council. They argue it would weaken the legal soundness of the regulation, but we remain determined to defend its inclusion in the upcoming negotiations because council's Counsel's arguments in our eyes are pretty weak. The third priority for Parliament is introduction of a penalty regime for companies that fail to comply with the import ban. The principle is simple you either comply or you pay a fine, and those fines must be aligned. Across the EU, harmonised penalties are necessary to prevent customs shopping by those seeking the most lenient enforcement. The council referred to the Union Customs Code, but that code does not contain harmonised penalties.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Instead, we have examples of other EU regulations which have harmonised penalty systems. It is also proposed in the revised version of the UCC, which is not yet adopted. The fourth major concern discussed in the first trilogue is the so-called review clause in article 15 of the Council's and the Commission's proposal. It is a suspension clause that would allow the Commission to authorise a temporary restart of Russian gas imports in case of sudden and significant developments which are not defined. Seriously threatening the security of energy supply of one or more member states. This is a serious loophole that could undermine the legal robustness and force majeure basis of this regulation, and the Commission could do so without even consulting the co-legislators legislators. Parliament's position is clear Russia cannot be part of any solution to the EU energy security challenges. We have other solidarity measures, such as the gas security of supply regulation available instead. Finally, one of the key issues for both co-legislators is the enforcement. The Parliament's position involves prior authorization for energy imports, which is quite similar to the council's approach, but there are some differences in terms exemptions from prior authorization, and timelines for submitting documents. The council's position, in our view, leaves loopholes which could be potentially exploited by Russia. We now face an intensive negotiation schedule, ten technical meetings and three trialogues over five weeks, with a goal of concluding by early December and voting in plenary later later this month. I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their strong support and cooperation, and we still hope to achieve a positive outcome in the upcoming Trilogues. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Dear chair, dear colleagues, thank you really very much for this convincing and constructive debate. What we have heard today confirms clearly that vast majority in this House and in Europe fully supports ending Europe's dependency on Russian gas. Even more, you believe it is necessary, urgent and long overdue to succeed in doing it. We must adopt this regulation and implement it properly. Member States must act now to invest in interconnections, secure new supply routes and continue reducing gas consumption. Developing renewable energy. Phasing out of Russian gas is a good starting point. Europe must go further. After gas, we must end all remaining imports of Russian oil as the Parliament requested. And we must also address our remaining dependence on Russian nuclear fuel and services. This is a strategic weakness that Europe can no longer ignore. So this regulation is the beginning of Europe's full and lasting energy independence. Also, because every euro we stop sending to the Kremlin strengthens our security. And that's at the same time weakens Russia's ability to kill in Ukraine. Sanctions are very effective. They made Russian economy weak. But this law is much more. I have to stress again, this regulation is not a sanction regime. Even with progress towards peace in Ukraine, which I sincerely hope will come, Europe must stay away from Russian energy. Experience shows too well that dependence on Russian is dangerous. And it's not only because of the current regime in Kremlin. It is, unfortunately, about Russia. Europe must never repeat previous mistakes. Let me end by stressing that Europe must choose strength over dependence, security over short term comfort, future where our energy decisions no longer put our values at risk. This is how Europe becomes stronger, safer and truly independent. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)