Lara WOLTERS

Policy topics Lara WOLTERS is active on

What Lara WOLTERS has said (28)

• 2025-05-15 “E-001962/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission As recognised by the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles 1 , the Commission has introduced the following initiatives to address the challenges associated with the exports of used textiles and textile waste: a targeted revision of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) 2 , for which a provisional agreement was reached on 18 February 2025; the new Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) 3 , and the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) 4 . The WFD introduces Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for textiles, making producers accountable for the products they make available on the EU market. Under EPR, Producer Responsibility Organisations, in line with the waste hierarchy, are expected to organise the collection of used textiles and textile waste, and the operations for re-use, preparing for reuse and recycling. Additionally, the WFD establishes new requirements for the sorting of separately collected textiles prior to their shipment as used textiles. The WSR complements the WFD by ensuring that exports of textile waste are managed in an environmentally sound manner. Different rules apply to exports to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and non-OECD countries. Non-OECD countries can continue receiving textile waste only if they notify the Commission of their intention to import EU waste and demonstrate their ability to deal with it in a sustainable manner. The ESPR introduces a ban on the destruction of unsold textiles, aimed at preventing the overproduction of textiles and their potential export to third countries. These initiatives should ensure that only used textiles of appropriate quality reach Third Countries, meeting the demand for affordable second-hand clothing from the EU. 1 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/textiles-strategy_en. 2 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3–30, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 109–140. 3 Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on shipments of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. 4 Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC.”
  Circular economy · Sustainable fashion
• 2025-01-14 “E-000112/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission is aware and concerned about airline charges for changing misspelled names on tickets and that passengers are often penalised for such spelling errors by high administrative fees. However, airlines should be allowed to charge for passengers’ names changes when the service is provided to another passenger. 2. The Commission is not aware of similar situations in the other modes of transport. 3. To address this matter, the Commission included in its 2013 proposal 1 , amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 2 , specific provisions requiring airlines to correct for free spelling mistakes in passenger names, unless a correction implies a change of time, date, itinerary or passenger. As to the legislative negotiations on the 2013 proposal, the European Parliament adopted its position in 2014 and confirmed it in 2019 and 2024, while the Council resumed its discussions in January 2025, under the Polish Presidency, with the aim to have a General Approach in June 2025. Airline charges are usually stipulated in the relevant terms and conditions of carriage, which must comply with the Unfair Contract Terms Directive 93/13/EEC 3 . This Directive provides that a contractual term not being individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirements of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. Such unfair terms are not binding on consumers. Also, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC 4 prohibits misleading practices, such as omission of material information that negatively affect consumer transactional decisions. The competent national authorities and courts are responsible to enforce national law transposing these provisions. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013PC0130 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/261/oj/eng 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1993/13/oj/eng 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2005/29/oj/eng”
  EU restrictions on unfair commercial practices · EU competences on consumer protection and product standards
• 2024-12-17 “E-002997/2024 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. On 4 September 2024, the Netherlands notified the Commission under Regulation (EU) No 598/2014 1 (the ‘Balanced Approach Regulation’) of its intention to introduce operating restrictions at Schiphol airport, including a movement cap within the range of 475,000 to 485,000. The Netherlands on 6 December 2024 supplemented their notification with the precise movement cap i.e. 478,000. 2. Under the Balanced Approach Regulation, noise-related operating restrictions must be notified to the Commission and stakeholders with a specific minimum notice before they enter into effect. It has always been open to the Dutch authorities to propose a movement cap outside the range notified on 4 September 2024. However, such a change might have to be considered as a new notification, thereby impacting the timing of its implementation. 3. The possible disclosure of documents held by the Commission to the public at large is governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 2 which aims to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents, while also containing certain exceptions related to the protection of a public or private interest, which may apply in this case. The Commission also informs the Honourable Member that a decision was adopted on 5 March 2025, assessing the Netherlands' plan to introduce measures at Schiphol Airport reducing noise for local residents 3 . The documents are available on the Europa website 4 . 1 OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 65. 2 OJ L 145, 31.05.2001, p.43. 3 C(2025) 1355 final. 4 https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/commission-adopts-decision-schiphol-airport-noise-reductionplan-2025-0305_en#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20Commission%20adopted%20a%20decision%20assessing%20the,at%20S chiphol%20Airport%20reducing%20noise%20for%20local%20residents”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “I think a comment first and then and then some questions very quickly. First of all, I think I need to echo my my colleague Dirk, who said it seems to be the key issue in all of this when it comes to AIOps, not Pep, but is the uptake of them in member states, the creation of them in member states. And I think we have a habit in Europe of identifying big problems, then realizing that member states are unwilling to crack the tough nuts that need to be cracked. And so instead, what we do is we look to Europe and to the EU to do something instead. And what we end up doing is sort of skirting around the edges. And that might not be enough. Um, we need to do what we can, but I think that is a bit of the, the, the elephant in the room. And instead we seem to be looking to transparency and other things to sort of encourage trust. Um, But my first question to Miss Matt is on this. What do you think are key sources of trust for citizens, for consumers, and is transparency the right way to go? You also commented transparency might have an adverse effect. So what do you our main and important sources of comfort that you think are helpful to Mr. Hutches? Um, how will you address this? I hope these straitjacket concerns that we're hearing and that might arise via performance benchmarks that you're now being asked for performance benefit statements. Um, and within that, how do you see, uh, those sitting with the role of the social partners? Very important, of course, in the Netherlands. Thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “(16:26:22 – 16:28:21): thank you chair thank you to axel for his expose and speaking for myself and having looked at the the proposal i i warmly welcome the proposed business wallet and hope we can make a valuable contribution to it along the lines outlined by my colleague voss i think that the digital sovereignty that he mentioned especially is important in light of our our our previous agenda item even i think the simple onboarding sounds good and importantly i also think that this what we're doing now is exactly the type of simplification that we should be delivering when we look at obstacles to the single market actual obstacles things we can do something about then this type of simplification yes needs to be addressed and we need to ensure that companies in our single market can benefit from simple procedures and digitization the devil of course as always will be in the detail a system that instills just as much trust as a stamp on paper if not more is what we should be after and part of that will be clear identification and as mentioned i think standards of data protection this wallet also needs to be attractive to use and accessible for all sorts of organizations including an ambitious rollout in the public sector that we should look at and for this we should consider feasibility and support quite carefully we should also avoid any confusion about what this proposal is and isn't it is something that can speed up compliance and paperwork it could be an incredibly valuable tool for procedures requiring identification such as the know your customer requires for anti money laundering but what it isn't is a one stop shop to comply with absolutely everything and neither can it be it's a means to an end and in my judgment a very good one but not an end in itself thank you very much”
  Electronic identity
• “We got there in the end and there was no it wasn't seen as a reason to to fully go and withdraw. So I would like more context of that by the European Commission, but also by civil society, because I imagine there are also things that maybe the European Commission can't quite see right now. Um, but that civil society would hold a view on. So I'm interested to understand this better. But the question to the commission is why does it see fit to to withdraw this proposal? The other question is on that that matter of articles 50 and 114, um, I presume that the Commission disputes the conclusions that the council legal service. Um, drew. Uh, and can can you give us your your views on on that and what Sergey said about, uh, about members or about volunteers, uh, and, and sort of fees associated that or contributions and buying pens. I mean, that that makes sense to me as economic activity. Um, and it'd be odd, I think, if now we say, well, no, not for profits actually need to be, um, making profit or need to be in some kind of, of, of economic activity that we define otherwise for, for all of this to happen. So your views on that are very welcome. Um, and then to civil society and I'll leave it there. Um, do you feel that what is happening here is, is part of that bigger trend, let's say, that new agenda that we see being rolled out by the European Commission? Or do you think that this is a a particular incident? Uh, more due to legal reasons. Thank you.”
  EU engagement with civil society
• “And now the commission is pulling the rug from underneath their feet. I think this is the kind of nonsense that can only be come up with when people go on what must be an ideological crusade and that at breakneck speed, refusing to consider real evidence or with a public consultation. And truly, the European Commission should be ashamed of this proposal. It claims that this is the middle ground, that it's a sensible proposal that's sorely needed. But it is an extreme proposal. Let us be clear on that. It radically slashes human rights and environmental standards, and it actually makes things more complicated. And what's more, this is a dishonest reading of what the Draghi report has called for. No company is leaving the EU because of sustainability reporting. Could things be improved? Yes, of course, let's have a sensible conversation about that. But there is no company that risks bankruptcy unless we tell them that it's okay to have children make their products. And this house now has a responsibility to get things back on track to deliver actual simplification. And unfortunately, the EPP has already been mind blowingly open about their willingness to work here with the extreme right. And that's not even plan B for the EP. It seems that's plan A, and the Commission has been absolutely fine to present its proposal under these circumstances. They knew that this could not gain a pro-European majority in this form, but it went ahead anyway. It is time to call this out for what it is. It's an extreme proposal. It's blatantly misguided, and it's backed by the fossil fuel industry and the far right. Thank you. ****Martin HOJSÍK @Chair: Excuse me. Blue card. Madam Walters, will you accept the blue card for Mr. Talbot? Please?”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Thank you very much. Dear president. Thank you to Miss Ribera, executive Vice president. Dear colleagues, in a world that's changing at breakneck speed, this is a time of protecting Europe through European defence, for one. But in the day to day, also through rules that protect the things that Europe holds dear. Competition rules are key in doing that, to shield citizens from price hikes and exploitative abuses, to defend the interests of workers when mergers take place, protect farmers from concentrations in the food industry to defend our small, innovative businesses from killer acquisitions. To protect ?the single market from distortive state aid, for instance, where it benefits companies that contribute to tax avoidance or environmental degradation. Now, of course, we should not be naive. The international economic order is under pressure, and competition policy enforcement does not take place in a void. The global context matters. That is why we welcome the report by Mario Draghi, which looks for ways to stimulate innovation and competitiveness also when it comes to enforcing or changing competition policy. We must adapt our economy to be more dynamic, to foster jobs and well-being, and to keep support for the twin transitions of digitalisation and sustainability. We must adapt our market. Also, a recent IMF report estimates that barriers in our Internal market act as a substantial, self-imposed tariff on goods and services. Some argue that we should therefore slash European rules in a Trump like manner, or that more mergers are necessary. I think our focus should rather be on deepening market integration, getting our enforcement priorities straight and adapting to new forms of harmful conduct that are emerging. Lastly, just as we must stand united in the face of global competition, we must stand united in investing in our common European future. This, rather than entering into a subsidy race that would benefit some member States and their citizens over others. All in all, we need to be flexible where we can and rigid where we must, flexible in responding to global challenges, but rigid when it comes to enforcement and achieving the goals of our competition policy. Defending our consumers, our markets, and ultimately our values. Thank you very much.”
  EU Competition policy
• “Thank you. Chair. Europe has a duty of care, and that is to provide its citizens now and in the future with the things that we value freedom, prosperity, inclusion and a healthy environment. To achieve that, we need huge investments, more decisive industrial policies and new ways of pooling European money. But these things require political vision, and it would seem there is no appetite for that in this commission any more. What we get instead is a panic bonfire of red tape. Never mind that in the long run, the EU's sustainability laws lead to more resilience, operational effectiveness, access to capital and reduced dependencies. Never mind that while regulatory flip flopping is not helpful for business. No, because what's trending now in Brussels and in Washington is the short term. Europe should be the continent that takes the long view. A place with sound companies and quality products. That's our competitive advantage. The green culture war that has come to Europe must be seen for what it really is. And that is self-sabotage. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Okay. Thank you. And at the risk of repeating some things because I have come here late. So my apologies to the to the commissioner and to the chair. First of all, may be important to repeat that no law is there because we like rules. I want to repeat that, uh, taxonomy was a tool that we conceived to avoid greenwashing and improve comparability, not because we want to make things complex for the sake of it. And in April, we expressed concerns that the objectives that the taxonomy was supposed to be for were put on the line, inter alia, by the new materiality threshold. Um, the delegated act that was then adopted gives us new reasons for concern, in particular the exemption or optionality for financial undertakings until January 2028. That's clearly a step back, as many financial companies are already successfully reporting under the regulation. I also strongly doubt if that sort of exemption belongs in a delegated act. And that's not the first time that I have concerns like that with this commission. I think we also have an institutional question here. Should a delegated act have such a clause, or is that something for the co-legislators here in Parliament and in the Council? Um, so that is something that I would like to the Commissioner to comment on. Then on the do no significant harm criteria for pollution, the Commission chose to reduce the number of substances of very concerned by almost 90%. You just spoke about it. So apologies if I if I repeat but there um again of concern, the only more positive thing that we could see was um, the potential inclusion of option of partial taxonomy alignment. Um, but there do you commit to do no significant harm as a, a baseline for that partial alignment? Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Thank you very much. Welcome to both ministers. Look forward to working with you over the coming months. Um, Mr. Bosco, you mentioned instability at the beginning of your intervention, and I think that in those times, we have many people looking to the EU to to lead. But I think for companies, credible leadership rests on stability, on clarity, on rigour. And I suppose my question is around how to bring that into the discussions around omnibus. I think many of us agree that the aim here is simplification, so that companies can focus on impact and not on compliance. We say many of the same things, but I think we also need to be honest, and I think that honesty at the moment is that the council position that was taken on omnibus is inherently deregulatory. Um, bringing up scope to 5000 for companies means far fewer companies will be doing this. Um, and so I have my hopes on your presidency to to bring some calm back into the discussion. But my question is, does your focus on simplification over deregulation then mean that you see some flexibility in that current council position? Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Mr. Choubey, you say that you're ready to work with us, and yet you didn't appoint people from the EPP for a long time to talk to us? And then after we talked talk together, you made statements in Politico that made it clear that you would only work with us if it suited you. So that's a difficult basis to start from. But when it comes to what we could actually do to simplify, there's many things that we could be discussing reasonably, but there hasn't been time for that because of a PR stunt from the European Commission that insists on proposing things within the first 100 days. I do not think there is any necessity to rush things like that, and therefore we are now faced with proposals that are misguided. And I think it's a little bit like saying that if you're driving on the motorway, cars will be able to drive faster without speed limits, and that's certainly true. But you are also going to have collisions.”
  Von der Leyen
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you to Axel for his exposé. And speaking for myself and having looked at the the proposal, I warmly welcome the proposed business wallet. And hope we can make a valuable contribution to it along the lines outlined by my colleague Voss. I think that the digital sovereignty that he mentioned especially is important in light of our, our our previous agenda item, even I think the simple onboarding sounds good. And importantly, I also think that this what we're doing now is exactly the type of simplification that we should be delivering. When we look at obstacles to the single market, actual obstacles, things we can do something about, then this type of simplification, yes, needs to be addressed, and we need to ensure that companies in our single market can benefit from simple procedures and digitisation. The devil of course, as always, will be in the detail a system that instills just as much trust as a stamp on paper, if not more, is what we should be after. And part of that will be clear identification. And as mentioned, I think high standards of data protection. This will it also needs to be attractive to use and accessible for all sorts of organisations, including an ambitious rollout in the public sector that we should look at. And for this, we should consider feasibility and support quite carefully. We should also avoid any confusion about what this proposal is and isn't. It is something that can speed up compliance and paperwork. It could be an incredibly valuable tool for procedures requiring requiring identification, such as the know your customer requires for anti-money laundering, but what it isn't is a one stop shop to comply with absolutely everything, and neither can it be. It's a means to an end and in my judgment, a very good one, but not an end in itself. Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “But can you say anything more on the VSM standard generally and on your involvement now in the SME standard? That would be very, very welcome. Um, and and I have one more question, but I suppose that I can because we're not so many members here, here today. Our apologies for that. Um, you also said that in terms of content, um, the most challenging or one of the most challenging things for companies has been double materiality in the value chain. And that you're looking at changes there. Can you say more about that and what that might, might mean? Um, and lastly, in terms of data points and, and narratives, um, I think there's probably a risk in, uh, seeking to, to prioritize, uh, numerical data, let's say, or non non-narrative, non-narrative data over a narrative data. I think that's even been the instruction from the commission. But I think there must be a point at which the narrative is vital for context, for an understanding, etc.. So would you see a risk in in slashing that too much and in the end ending up with with numbers rather than stories, but perhaps too much. So. Thank you.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Um, but please, I think this is also the forum where you share with us, um, the difficulties and the and the risks of this of this rush. Um, and following on from that question, um, how will you ensure stakeholder involvement from what I've seen, from what you have sent to us, I think that one of the ways in which you're trying to to mitigate the risk on quality is that you're not only collecting stakeholder input through the consultation, but you're also actively going to to conduct interviews. Do you think that that will be sufficient? Um, considering also the wave one companies where there's, there's there's expertise where there's experiences to be collected and analyzed. Will that also be sufficient to, to be able to do that. Um, then on uh, omnibus itself and of course, the uncertainty there of the outcome from a, from a legislative point of view. Um, you said your vision is based on the, on the current text. Um, in an ideal world, I suppose, uh, there would be more time so that you would have an outcome to to work with that. So any any comments that you would like to make still on the the omnibus process? Uh, here, um, on a small company. So will there be any particular role for, for small companies in the development, uh, of, of the, the, the new standards or how do you how do you see that, um, in the, in the revision also, is there anything in particular you can say on, on smaller companies and in the interviews you're conducting, for instance? Um, and lastly, um, on the pilot project, I noticed the part on the, uh, the ecosystem for SMEs.”
  EU-level coordination of research agendas
• “Thank you chair. In today's world, Europe is strongest when it acts together. And we must ensure companies can harness the power of European integration. Removing internal barriers, creating a reliable regulatory environment and enabling scale is what the EU should be doing at this time. But let us be clear a 28th regime is not inherently good or bad. Its value depends entirely on how it is designed and what political choices we make. Crucially, the choice must be made to protect workers and ensure that this new form does not open loopholes. I very much welcome the attention paid to this by my colleague, Rene reports, and expect the European Commission to do the same. I also welcome the report's innovative approach, from allowing easier and digital incorporation to safeguards against killer acquisitions and room for innovative ownership and governance models, including stewardship. The message to the European Commission is clear take this report both as inspiration and warning. Only a well-designed proposal, ambitious in its approach but cautious in its execution.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you. Thank you for for being here. Um, you mentioned, uh, three ongoing, uh, cases. And of course, the one regarding omnibus is of particular interest to our political family. Um, so on that, on the, the, uh, the case, uh, laid out by, by eight different, I believe, NGOs, uh, on the proceedings leading up to the omnibus proposal. Um, first of all, simple, but can you confirm the timeline of your your work on this, on this case? I know there's been a commission response last week. Um, but can you confirm the rest of the timeline of your investigation and when you hope to issue findings on that? Um, is there anything you can already tell us about the Commission's response and exchanges that you have had? Um, and then going into that commission response a bit more deeply, a few things I wanted to mention. Um, the first very important in the commission's written response, it talks about, uh, the commission says that the lack of an impact assessment, um, and the 24 hour interservice consultation were justified as the economy had dramatically deteriorated since the adoption of CSC and CSE, triple D. Um, so, to be clear, the Commission says that between May 2024, um, the adoption of the CSE, d and February 2025, the omnibus proposal, there was a dramatic deterioration.”
  Activities of EU Ombudsman
• “Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hoekstra, for being here. My question is on the establishment of a European Digital Service tax. Namely, could the European Commission introduce one ASAP, please? Um, now, on Friday, I wrote to you on this matter with 30 plus colleagues from different political groups. I heard your very sobering opening statement. I understand the realism, but these are special times, for lack of a better word. And I also think you'll agree with me that the European Commission has a responsibility separate from the Council. And the Commission already concluded that European tax systems are unfit for the digital age, and that big tech companies pay less than half the tax that other companies in Europe do. And that's absurd, especially when you think about what type of companies are gaining from that today. Now, of course, we were trying to find a solution like adults in the OECD. But I also think that we need to be adult enough now to realize that it just ain't going to happen. The US got itself a carve out on pillar two, so I think we need to take action on pillar one now. So do you agree with that? Does the European Commission recognise that we urgently need a European Digital Service tax in particular because of the MFF that's ongoing. And what timeline could we expect? Lastly, perhaps the lay of the land in Council. Thank you.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Thank you. Yes. Thank you to Miss Holler for being here for your account and full, full sympathy from this committee with what you have told us. It would seem that the child Emperor, as I would call him, is now putting innocent citizens on sanctions lists and actually freeing, freeing actual criminals from from prison. And I think here in Europe, we keep on wishing and hoping that our words will make a difference to that. We even congratulate each other on the stern words that we say about all this. And at the end of the day, every time we're surprised that nothing actually matters and nothing changes. And so I imagine that Mr. Steltzer wasn't, uh, wasn't very excited about coming to this committee today. Um, my question to him is like that of Mr. Rapuzzi. Why isn't the commissioner here to talk to us about the blocking regulation? And I suppose my question is, are we sacrificing fundamental rights and values on the altar of the feared major economic consequences to our companies that I heard you talk about and to our economy? And if that's not a question that he can answer, then can we have the commissioner come in and answer in his stead. I have one more question from the expert for the expert from the Netherlands. And that's legally. To what extent does the EU have a duty to protect the ICC as a whole, which is not something we seem to be doing at the moment. Thank you.”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you to Axel for his exposé. And speaking for myself and having looked at the the proposal, I warmly welcome the proposed business wallet. And hope we can make a valuable contribution to it along the lines outlined by my colleague Voss. I think that the digital sovereignty that he mentioned especially is important in light of our, our our previous agenda item, even I think the simple onboarding sounds good. And importantly, I also think that this what we're doing now is exactly the type of simplification that we should be delivering. When we look at obstacles to the single market, actual obstacles, things we can do something about, then this type of simplification, yes, needs to be addressed, and we need to ensure that companies in our single market can benefit from simple procedures and digitisation. The devil of course, as always, will be in the detail a system that instills just as much trust as a stamp on paper, if not more, is what we should be after. And part of that will be clear identification. And as mentioned, I think high standards of data protection. This will it also needs to be attractive to use and accessible for all sorts of organisations, including an ambitious rollout in the public sector that we should look at. And for this, we should consider feasibility and support quite carefully. We should also avoid any confusion about what this proposal is and isn't. It is something that can speed up compliance and paperwork. It could be an incredibly valuable tool for procedures requiring requiring identification, such as the know your customer requires for anti-money laundering, but what it isn't is a one stop shop to comply with absolutely everything, and neither can it be. It's a means to an end and in my judgment, a very good one, but not an end in itself. Thank you very much.”
  Electronic identity
• “Thank you. Chair. The European Commission promised us a simplification of EU rules for companies without compromising on the landmark green ambitions of the last mandate. What's not to like? You would think? After all, with the current economic backdrop, efforts to simplify, digitize and streamline those are to be welcomed and we as a group could certainly see room for doing that. But I will tell you what's not to like and that this is not the simplification of EU rules. This is the simplification of a debate. It's an oversimplification of a debate and it's a harmful one. What we are presented here with is removing liability from a law that says to check and address things like child labour and deforestation. Now, clearly that's not simplification, that's obstructing justice. That is purposefully making things harder for the victims of wrongdoing and NGOs. That is making a mockery of EU law. Essentially, liability is not just there for the sake of it. It's there to guarantee fairness and a level playing field between cowboy companies and companies that give a damn. Also asking companies to only check their direct suppliers. That's pointless. Box ticking for companies. You are asking them to look at places where there's no issues and no risks, and you're giving them a blank cheque to ignore risks that are further down their supply chain. Another example banning companies from requesting information from companies of less than 1000 employees. That will just mean that their reporting is going to be inaccurate, incomplete and very difficult to comply. And now we talk about red tape. Make no mistake this is regulatory schizophrenia that's going to end up increasing compliance costs. Companies have already invested in sustainability.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Thank you very much. Thank you, Theresa, for being here here with us this morning. It's a pleasure. Um, my first question follows on from Mr. Ferber's question. Um, and that's a question about internal cohesion in the union. Um, you will have a central role these, these years in shaping an industrial policy that's both competitive, of course, but also climate resilient and also fair. And, um, on state aid, uh, and that industrial policy, we see that state aid is being used more frequently to support national industries, national industrial strategies at the moment rather than one cohesive European strategy. And we also know that not all member states have the same fiscal, space and fiscal capacities under the temporary crisis framework. The vast majority of state aid notified was notified by two member states. And so that risk of fragmentation, especially in a context geopolitically where we do need and want European champions, but we also want cohesion and unity and stability. How do we tackle that? That's my my first question. So how will the Commission ensure that we remain competitive on the global stage, of course, but also safeguarding fairness and cohesion on the inside in our union. And the second question on housing, affordable housing. I know you've spoken on this before. I think state aid and housing is something we will be talking about much more these years. We know that affordable housing has become a problem for so many Europeans decent, affordable homes. And so, um, can you say some more about the concrete actions taken by the commission, um, on tackling the housing crisis? Thank you, thank you.”
  State Aid
• “(16:26:22 – 16:28:21): thank you chair thank you to axel for his expose and speaking for myself and having looked at the the proposal i i warmly welcome the proposed business wallet and hope we can make a valuable contribution to it along the lines outlined by my colleague voss i think that the digital sovereignty that he mentioned especially is important in light of our our our previous agenda item even i think the simple onboarding sounds good and importantly i also think that this what we're doing now is exactly the type of simplification that we should be delivering when we look at obstacles to the single market actual obstacles things we can do something about then this type of simplification yes needs to be addressed and we need to ensure that companies in our single market can benefit from simple procedures and digitization the devil of course as always will be in the detail a system that instills just as much trust as a stamp on paper if not more is what we should be after and part of that will be clear identification and as mentioned i think standards of data protection this wallet also needs to be attractive to use and accessible for all sorts of organizations including an ambitious rollout in the public sector that we should look at and for this we should consider feasibility and support quite carefully we should also avoid any confusion about what this proposal is and isn't it is something that can speed up compliance and paperwork it could be an incredibly valuable tool for procedures requiring identification such as the know your customer requires for anti money laundering but what it isn't is a one stop shop to comply with absolutely everything and neither can it be it's a means to an end and in my judgment a very good one but not an end in itself thank you very much”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Now, I myself am not aware of oil shocks, massive, uh, layoffs in large companies in Europe and so forth. But what evidence, um, have you seen or heard to support such a claim? Um, on public consultation. Then the commission says that that was a necessary due to other forms of consultation, including consultations held in 2023 before the conclusion of CS triple D, some hybrid events that were held, um, and uh, also their now infamous invite only meeting behind closed doors. So do you think that those alone satisfy or would satisfy the transparency and open participation outlined in the Better Regulation guidelines? And lastly, this is more a a comment than a question. But in my team we have counted five different typos. Just simple typos in the omnibus proposal. Granted, some are repetitions of the same mistake. Um, but that to me would seem to go counter the Commission's claim in its response that its work on this was robust. Would you agree with that?”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much. Thank you for having organised this. Thank you to Sergei for the for the great introduction. Um, I have a few questions to the civil society representatives who were here. And I also have some to the European Commission, which I suppose is okay. Um, if I'm very honest, I suppose I'm trying to understand what is happening here or what has happened here. And more specifically, what I'm trying to understand is why the European Commission has come to the conclusion that this file should be withdrawn. And I don't know if that's because the European Council has no appetite anymore, or if because a particular member state has no appetite anymore, or because in the higher echelons of the European Commission, there is now a new political agenda that prioritizes NGOs, um, and prioritizes businesses, I suppose. And I can't quite work it out because I think that the things that were described by the Commission previously on why we need this and why it makes sense, um, I assume that those things still stand, um, in the original impact assessment, it said there's a wide acknowledgement of the need to strengthen the cross-border activities of non-profit associations. Um, and uh, also support for EU action to facilitate non-profit associations in the internal market. Um, I don't think that that has diminished since the proposal. And I think that the examples that were given here, including on crisis situations, etc. demonstrate that. And I have a feeling that the representatives of the commission here today probably agree with that as well. And yet we are in this situation. Um, in the past there were other proposals that were stuck in council. I was, in the previous term rapporteur on women on boards that was stuck for ten years, and yet we unfroze the situation.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Yes. Thank you, Commissioner, for being here. Um, you mentioned that the commission is lowering administrative burdens without lowering standards. And I'm starting to get a bit tired of this sentence because it's the mantra that keeps being repeated, but just repeating it doesn't make it true. I actually agree with Axel Voss that there are things that could have been done to actually simplify, say on CS, CD and things where there might be overlap on CSR, but those things were not done. Um, and there is now a report from the European Ombudsman that says that all those things that weren't done, taken together amount to maladministration, that in creating omnibus one that certain things that the Commission should have done, such as proper consultation, were purposefully, I imagine, to avoid pushback, were not done. And so I would like to hear from you what you think that means for the commission going forward. If you see Rectifications being possible on that, a lot of the damage has already been done. But how you would respond to to those? Um, the second question is you said, of course, in your confirmation hearing that you thought speedy should be implemented without changes. We are very far from that. Um, we're at a stage of dismantling, um, which of course reduces costs because far fewer companies need to do this. But in the process, of course, in Parliament, something has shifted. Um, something that the parliamentary group that you, you come from also can no longer support. And I wonder if you regret that.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you thank you commissioner for being here there are two things that I want to talk about this morning both things I am extremely angry about to be frank. The first is a piece of research by SOMO that came out yesterday an NGO that has been investigating some of the goings on on omnibus one and what I'm angry about is the insolent brazen and some of the darkest lobbying frankly that I have ever seen in my time in Brussels on this omnibus by who by US oil and gas companies Exxon Chevron facilitated by Teneo consultancy. And this lobbying took forms that I think are are completely outrageous circumventing commission experts it talked about neutralizing member states that would want to be unhelpful encouraging extreme positions in the European Parliament encouraging the rapporteur on this to side with the far right and all of that had a result all of that was extremely successful because what happened well the commission did exactly what these companies in something called a competitiveness roundtable wanted and what did they want they wanted a weak proposal of course that would allow them to then dismantle omnibus one further. And on that the omnibus has written a the ombudsman the European ombudsman has written a report on what happened in the leading up to omnibus one and the omnibus said this is maladministration the failings of the commission in putting together these proposals taken together amount to maladministration. So my first question for the commissioner is of course aside from do you take the European ombudsman seriously to which I hope the question is a resounding yes but do you find maladministration a a a serious matter. Then on that on that report I have given you advanced notice of the questions that me and my S and D colleagues would like answers to the ombudsman disputed that the first omnibus was an urgency which is of course the excuse that was used to then not consult etcetera and what she criticized was the attempts by the commission to avoid and to limit public consultation impact assessments and interservice consultations. So I have questions on those what are you going to do to make this right what are you going to do to address maladministration and to make this right and was it you who took the decision that this was an urgency and if so why is there no documentation on this were you responsible for what what happened afterwards with this proposal selecting the stakeholders that did get to input on this proposal was that documented and most importantly again what will you do to make this right thank you.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you, Commissioner, for joining us today. Also, two questions from my side. First one on materiality scope. And there the chosen threshold, at least for for now is 10%. And that is the most permissive of all of the options that were considered by the Platform on Sustainable Finance, which recommended a range between 2 and 10%. And combined with the revised Csrd scope, that threshold risks significantly reducing the number of companies subject to taxonomy reporting. On top of that, the double threshold structure adds complexity, unnecessary complexity, I think, and that might encourage companies to restructure their reporting to stay below that limits and those consequences could undermine the credibility of the taxonomy, both as a comparability tool and a safeguard against greenwashing. So my question is, has the Commission thought about those impacts? Are they fully intended, and will the Commission still consider adopting a lower threshold? Secondly, on partial alignment, we support the ambition to better capture transition finance, but we must prevent that investment does significant harm and fulfilment of the do no significant harm criteria must remain our baseline and not a nice to have. And there are alternatives possible one to design the intermediate category where um do no significant harm, compliance remains mandatory, while only the substantial contribution criteria are relaxed. For instance, or um, an alternative to be introduced to introduce a temporary comply or explain Main mechanism, and so has the Commission thought about those possible alternatives. And how does the Commission intend to ensure the credibility of partial alignment under the taxonomy? Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy