Morten LØKKEGAARD

Policy topics Morten LØKKEGAARD is active on

What Morten LØKKEGAARD has said (35)

• 2026-06-16 “Thank you very much. Mr.. Commissioner. Colleagues. Europe often talks about technological dependence, but independence is that a goal in itself? If independence means isolation, we won't have one. No modern economy will be strong. Strong if it's closed off. So the question is, is how Europe can be dependent independent of the rest of the world. The question is how Europe can can be indispensable for the rest of the world. We must create companies that others are dependent on. We should develop chips and AI and things that the rest of the world wants for the. The challenges are too few people dependent on us, so we shouldn't be. Digital isolation. We're looking for. We should be going for European technological leadership. A strong, strong Europe is not a Europe that is alone. It is a Europe that the rest of the world can't avoid. Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• 2026-06-16 “Commissioner, colleagues. Europe often talks about technological, dependence. But is independence is is that a goal in itself? If independence means isolation, we won't have won. No modern economy will be string strong if it's closed off. So the question is is how Europe can be dependent independent of the rest of the world. The question is how Europe can can be become indispensable for the rest of the group the world. We must create companies that others are dependent on. We should should develop chips, AI, and things that the rest of the world wants for. The the challenges are too few people dependent on us, So it shouldn't be digital isolation we're we're looking for. We should be going for European technological leadership. A strong strong Europe is not a Europe that is alone. It is a a Europe that the rest of the world can't avoid. Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• 2026-02-27 “P-000831/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has taken note of the European Court of Auditors’ report on critical raw materials for the energy transition and is addressing the identified challenges by accelerating implementation of the Critical Raw Materials Act 1 (CRMA), notably through the RESourceEU Action Plan 2 , which was not covered by the report. Efforts focus on closing financing gaps, easing permitting constraints, and strengthening project delivery capacity, including via the Critical Raw Materials Centre. RESourceEU mobilises de-risking tools and tackles regulatory bottlenecks to speed up projects that could reduce EU dependency on a single country of origin by 30–50% by 2029 for battery, rare earth, and defence-related raw materials. The EU is mobilising EUR 3 billion to support these value chains. In the context of the EU–Greenland Strategic Partnership on sustainable raw materials value chains, the Commission is already implementing relevant actions to advance sustainable mining projects with a clear link to the European industry. Support has been provided through technical assistance and investor matchmaking to identify raw materials projects of relevance for the EU industry, and to facilitate their access to finance and off takers. The Commission committed to unlocking financial support for Greenland Resources’ Malmbjerg molybdenum project to enhance supply security in the defence sector. The Commission has also selected a graphite extraction project in Greenland, developed by GreenRoc, as a Strategic Project under the CRMA. As announced in January 2026 by the President, the Commission is currently working on an investment package to support Greenland’s economy and infrastructure, including in the field of sustainable raw materials. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1252/2024-05-03/eng. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0945&qid=1774448105138.”
  EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure · Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• 2026-01-30 “E-000397/2026 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The Commission proposed on 17 December 2025 to extend the scope of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to selected steel and aluminium-intensive downstream goods. This scope extension covers intermediate goods and final goods and aims to address the risk of downstream carbon leakage. The Commission has proposed an entry into force date of 1 January 2028 for the downstream extension. This allows time for the legislative process and subsequently for developing and amending the relevant implementing acts. Furthermore, it allows all stakeholders involved, including importers, national authorities and third country producers, sufficient time to prepare for the downstream extension. The Temporary Decarbonisation Fund is an environmental measure. It will provide support to EU producers of certain CBAM goods to reduce their exposure to a remaining carbon leakage risk. Support will be granted for the production years 2026 and 2027. EU producers will have to demonstrate decarbonisation efforts to receive support. The forthcoming EU Emission Trading System (ETS) review will provide the opportunity for a comprehensive review of how best to address the issue of the remaining risk of carbon leakage from 2028 onwards. It should be recalled that that the CBAM is phased-in gradually, meaning that there is only a small reduction in installations’ free allocation in 2026 and 2027 for the production of goods in scope of CBAM (2.5% and 5% respectively). The transitory character of the Fund precludes any interpretation that it may constitute a precedent, a model or a reference point for the EU ETS review. Accordingly, the existence, operation or cessation of the Fund shall not create any expectation, legal or otherwise, regarding the EU ETS review.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) · State Aid
• 2026-01-30 “P-000399/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission The Commission recognises the value of integrating practical work experience into education. Such opportunities can foster personal development and ease young people’s transitions into the modern labour market. At the same time, Directive 94/33/EC 1 on the protection of young people at work sets out the employer’s general obligations to protect and monitor young workers’ health and safety. It lays down minimum standards for working hours, night work, rest periods and breaks for young workers, restricting exposure to overly demanding work. The Commission remains committed to the level of protection ensured by those rules and currently has no plans to amend the Directive and its provision. Importantly, the Commission continues to support the transition from education to employment through dedicated projects targeting young people across the EU, through funding instruments such as the European Social Fund Plus 2 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1994/33/oj/eng. 2 https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en.”
  Youth employment & training · EU rules on hazardous working conditions
• 2025-11-28 “E-004721/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The term ‘sport’ is not defined in the VAT (value-added tax) Directive 1 . The Court of Justice clarified that an activity such as duplicate bridge, which is characterised by a physical element that appears to be negligible, is not covered by the concept of ‘sport’ within the meaning of that provision 2 . Further, the Commission notes that chess shares similarities with bridge in relation to the involved physical activity. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission regularly monitors the correct implementation of EU law. However, the Member States have the primary responsibility for transposing, applying and implementing EU law correctly. The collection of VAT 3 is a task entrusted to Member States. The Commission lacks data to assess the impact of subjecting to VAT the practice of mind sports in Denmark. 1 Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, pp. 1–118. 2 Case C-90/16. 3 Case C-132/06.”
  VAT harmonisation
• 2025-11-28 “E-004720/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Report on the Future of European Competitiveness points to the need to complete the Digital Single Market by addressing fragmentation along national borders and to create EUwide players by facilitating cross-border integration and operations. The Commission shares the objective of a genuine single market for electronic communications and recognises that regulatory fragmentation can hinder cross-border scale and investment. On 21 January 2026, the Commission presented a proposal for a Digital Networks Act 1 (DNA) aimed at reinforcing competitiveness, strengthening the single market for connectivity and improving resilience and preparedness of Europe’s digital infrastructure. The DNA proposal is not about consolidation of the electronic communications sector within the respective Member States, but it aims, with a simplified and more harmonised legal framework, to reduce administrative burden and incentivise electronic communications operators to innovate, invest, scale up, and offer better services to end-users cross-border. Any consolidation between market players will remain a commercial decision and will continue to be assessed under competition rules pursuant to the EU Merger Regulation 2 . The Commission cannot provide a general estimate of the price impact of increased telecom consolidation. Mergers are and will continue to be assessed case by case. Available evidence shows that lower prices in the EU reflect effective competition, while service quality has continued to improve: EU mobile prices remain structurally below US levels, while performance parameters are comparable or better. The Commission will continue to enforce merger control to protect competition and consumers. 1 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on digital networks, amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120, Directive 2002/58/EC and Decision No 676/2002/EC and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1971, Directive (EU) 2018/1972 and Decision No 243/2012/EU (Digital Networks Act), COM(2026) 16 final. 2 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, pp. 1–22.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• 2025-11-28 “E-004722/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission Over the last five years, rapid economic and geopolitical changes have created new policy needs in defence, security, trade, and competitiveness, generating additional tasks and administrative pressures for the EU institutions. Within an administrative framework built on stable staffing, the Commission largely maintained unchanged staff levels, with only limited exceptions agreed by the co-legislators, while internal redeployment was insufficient to absorb all new tasks. The proposal for the administrative expenditure for the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2028-2034 1 is calibrated to close the capacity gap stemming from these additional tasks conferred upon the EU institutions over the current MFF. This capacity gap is estimated at 2.500 full-time equivalents (FTE) for all institutions, comprising both officials and external staff, to be phased in over the first three years of the next MFF. Closing the capacity gap is essential to equip the institutions with the resources for addressing new needs, such as - among others - cybersecurity, AI, etc., and for allowing the Commission to take on efficiently the numerous new tasks since the start of the current MFF, such as the EU’s Foreign Investment Screening Mechanism 2 , Digital Markets Act 3 , Critical Raw Materials Act 4 , European Health Data Space 5 , Sustainable Products initiative 6 , General Product Safety Directive 7 , the Act in Support of Ammunition Production 8 . 1 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52024PC0023. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401252. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202500327. 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401781. 7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0095. 8 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0237.”
  Budget for EU politicians · Size of EU budget
• 2025-11-06 “E-004390/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that flexibility for contracting authorities is important across the different phases of procurement, from planning to execution. The Commission has announced a revision of the EU public procurement Directives for the second quarter of 2026. As part of this revision, the Commission intends to assess to what extent contracting authorities should enjoy more flexibility in tendering. To prepare this revision, the Commission will carry out an impact assessment to ensure that any proposed measure achieves its intended objectives, including simplification, and has launched a public consultation that is open until 26 January 2026 1 . The Commission’ proposal will be informed by the impact assessment. The Commission is not in a position at this stage to commit to any possible aspect of its forthcoming proposals. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/15492-EU-public-procurement-rulesrevision_en.”
  State Aid · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2025-11-06 “E-004391/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Any feed additive consisting of live microorganisms can currently be authorised in accordance with the rules and procedures set out in Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 1 , including in the category of ‘zootechnical additives’ to favourably affect the environment, as referred to in point (d) of Article 6(1) of that Regulation and in point 4 (c) of Annex I thereto (hereafter ‘4c feed additives’). Similarly, Commission Regulation (EC) No 429/2008 2 can accommodate applications for 4c feed additives consisting of live microorganisms and therefore does not need to be amended for that purpose. In particular, Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 429/2008 lays down general requirements for the application dossier, independently from the functional group which is being applied for. Annex III further provides for specific requirements with respect to certain categories of additives, including explicit reference to zootechnical additives consisting of live microorganisms. The Commission adopted on 16 December 2025 a proposal for a Food and Feed simplification package 3 to tackle overlapping, unnecessary or burdensome rules, including in the area of feed additives. While maintaining very high safety standards, the aim is to simplify rules and procedures, thus offering a more supportive environment for innovation such as the development of new ‘4c’ feed additives. The Commission proposal was transmitted to the European Parliament and to the Council in accordance with the legislative procedure. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition. OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, pp. 29, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/1831/oj. 2 Commission Regulation (EC) No 429/2008 of 25 April 2008 on detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the preparation and the presentation of applications and the assessment and the authorisation of feed additives. OJ L 133, 22.5.2008, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/429/oj. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_3081.”
  EU policy on novel foods
• 2025-10-29 “P-004240/2025 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission The Commission reaffirms that the Pay Transparency Directive is instrumental for the full realisation of the right to equal pay for the same work or work of equal value between women and men and remains fully committed to its effective and timely implementation. It expects all Member States to transpose the Directive by the deadline of June 2026. The Commission is actively supporting its correct and uniform transposition. Efforts to reduce administrative burdens focus on methodological guidance and other practical support measures. The Commission has organised four workshops to assist national administrations and social partners in ensuring comprehensive and timely transposition and to exchange best practices. In addition, the European Institute for Gender Equality is preparing a step-by-step toolkit on gender-neutral job evaluation for use by employers and social partners. It is intended that the toolkit will contain various methodologies tailored to the size of employers. Furthermore, dedicated funding is made available to Member States and social partners to support the implementation of the directive, training and capacity building. In relation to the assessment of expected costs and benefits, the Commission kindly invites the Honourable Member to consult the Commission’s Impact Assessment 1 accompanying the proposal for the Directive 2 . It is important to highlight that the Commission carefully assessed and integrated the views of social partners in the preparations of its proposal for the Directive; those views were also taken into consideration during the legislative process. This concerns particularly the thresholds and timeline for pay reporting and exemptions for small employers, such as concerning pay progression criteria. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD%3A2021%3A0041%3AFIN 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52021PC0093”
  Gender pay transparency
• 2025-10-27 “E-004217/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission acknowledges the importance of tackling integration challenges due to nonstandardised interfaces and protocols. Under the Ecodesign Directive, a study 1 found significant benefits in adopting energy-smart appliances: enhancing grid stability, savings for consumers, and aiding the green transition. However, market conditions at the time suggested that regulatory action was premature. Thus, a voluntary Code of Conduct was initiated, with eleven major heat pump and white goods manufacturers committing to develop products with common energy-smart features 2 . Soon, details on these appliances will be listed in the European Product Registry for Energy Labelling (EPREL) database 3 . Efforts are ongoing to include electric vehicle (EV) chargers and photovoltaic inverters in the Code of Conduct. The Commission is also considering energy-smart information for energy labels, beginning with an icon on revised labels for space and water heaters 4 . Simultaneously, since adopting the Digitalisation of Energy Action Plan, the Commission is working on the Common European Energy Data Space, aiming to establish an EU coordination framework to improve system interoperability, supported by the Smart Energy Expert Group. This space will encourage data sharing, notably for flexibility services and smart, bi-directional EV charging. The Commission continues to evaluate the need for regulatory actions and updates on the flexibility and benefits of energy-smart appliances. 1 Available on CIRCABC: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/1582d77c-d930-4c0d-b1634f67e1d42f5b/library/50ecf23c-081a-42b7-bb00-f85e76fa92e7?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC, with a separate report on policy options: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/1582d77c-d930-4c0d-b1634f67e1d42f5b/library/691805b7-5b3b-4701-8f2b-e59dd9281397/details. 2 More information on the Code of Conduct for the interoperability of Energy Smart Appliances can be found here: https://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/development-of-policy-proposals-for-energy-smart-appliances. 3 https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/home. 4 Revised energy labelling Regulation for space and water heaters published on Have Your Say for feedback in November 2025.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices · Energy efficiency
• 2025-09-17 “E-003573/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission The Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027 supports sustainable energy through multiple programmes. Available data (in EUR billion) for key relevant MFF programmes is included below, structured as follows for each of the programmes: (1) funds committed (sustainable energy/fossil fuels); (2) total programme budget (2021-2027): - Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Energy: (1) 3.43/0.15[1]; (2) 5.8; - LIFE- Clean Energy Transition: (1) 0.69/n.a ; (2) 1; - Cohesion policy funds[2]: (1) 45[3]/ 0.9[4]; (2) 293; - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)[5]: (1) 64[6]/1.6[7] (2) 650[8]; - InvestEU: (1) 9/n.a. (2) 30.4[9]. The next MFF is proposed with a streamlined structure and fewer programmes dedicated to specific policies. EUR 29.9 billion is proposed for specific energy objectives under CEF. Other key programmes – the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), Horizon Europe (HE), and National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) – are proposed to fund energy as part of broader priorities, e.g., Clean Transition and Industrial Decarbonisation in ECF (provisionally EUR 26.2 billion, complemented by EUR 25.3 billion for collaborative research in line with the ECF priorities under HE). The average annual energy-related investment needs 1 estimated within the framework of REPowerEU 2 and the Impact Assessment of the 2040 Climate Target 3 amount to EUR 680 billion for the MFF period (2028-2034) to reach the EU climate targets. This amount comprises demand-side measures that require on average EUR 380 billion per year, supply side measures, including power generation and storage, that would need EUR 195 billion per year, and energy infrastructure needs of EUR 105 billion per year, of which EUR 85 billion for grid infrastructure. 1 Excluding transport. 2 SWD(2022) 230 final. 3 SWD/2024/63 final.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration · EU industrial funding
• 2025-08-21 “E-003267/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) 1 applies to all packaging and packaging waste and to European and non-European enterprises and suppliers, equally. Manufacturers and importers can place packaging on the market only when it is in conformity with the sustainability requirements laid down in Chapter II of the PPWR, such as recyclability, recycled content and labelling. In addition, economic operators defined in Article 3(1), point 15, of the PPWR as ‘producers’ bear extended producer responsibility requirements (EPR). Under the Digital Services Act 2 , (DSA), providers of online platforms do not have the same obligations under the EU product legislation as the manufacturers, importers or producers. Under Article 45(4) PPWR, in the case of packaging, providers of online platforms must obtain certain information from producers that sell packaging or packaged products via the platforms These include a confirmation of the EPR registration and of compliance with the respective EPR requirements. To be noted that the territorial scope of the DSA applies to all intermediary services offered to recipients in the EU irrespective of the place of establishment of the provider. The enforcement of the Regulation will be primarily the task of the competent authorities in the Member States. The Commission will monitor the enforcement by Member States and support them by facilitating the dialogue and harmonised implementation and enforcement approaches among national enforcement authorities. 1 Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-servicesact_en.”
  EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports · "Buy European" provisions
• 2025-08-21 “E-003268/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR) 1 applies to all packaging and packaging waste, without discrimination between goods manufactured within the EU and those imported from third countries. E-commerce platforms are neither manufacturers, importers of packaging or packaged products, nor producers themselves. However, under Article 45(4) PPWR online platforms are obliged to obtain certain information from producers that sell packaging or packaged products via their online platforms. These include confirmation of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) registration by the producer and compliance with the relevant EPR requirements. 1 Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025.”
  EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports · "Buy European" provisions
• 2025-04-09 “E-001462/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission confirms that ‘data security’ can be used in public procurement as a technical specifications requirement or as part of the awarding criteria. It is up to the public buyers to define the adequate procurement solution that meets their specific needs and reflect it adequately in the tender documents. The evaluation of the EU public procurement framework is ongoing. Security aspects, including data security, are discussed in this context. Once the evaluation is concluded, its outcome will be taken into account in the impact assessment of the forthcoming revision. As a principle, public procurement regulates only the process of purchasing. Public buyers have already various ways to include security aspects in their tenders. From the general cybersecurity perspective, the Commission is monitoring the current transposition of the Network and Information Systems (NIS2) Directive 1 which requires entities from 18 critical sectors to take organisational cybersecurity risk-management measures to protect their network and information systems, which include the digital data stored, processed, retrieved or transmitted. The Commission is also monitoring and supporting the implementation of the Cyber Resilience Act 2 , which ensures, among others, cybersecurity by design (including protection of processed data) of products with digital elements placed on the EU market as of 11 December 2027. 1 Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union, amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and Directive (EU) 2018/1972, and repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148 (NIS 2 Directive) (Text with EEA relevance). 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02024R2847-20241120.”
  Digitalization of public governance & administration
• 2024-12-13 “P-002943/2024 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission 1. Under the current customs legal framework, the consumers are the importers of goods that they have ordered from third countries via platforms. The Customs Reform proposal 1 introduces the concept of deemed importer, by which the platforms that have registered for the VAT Import One Stop Shop (IOSS) are considered responsible for the financial and nonfinancial requirements applicable on these e-commerce imports. The proposal to amend the VAT Directive now includes the provisions on the mandatory IOSS, which will be further discussed in Council and which may require a further adjustment in the definition of the deemed importer. Both proposals are likely to evolve during the negotiation process. They are now both in the Council but the customs reform is subject to ordinary legislative procedure so both co-legislators will still have a say. 2. Subject to the negotiations of the co-legislators, the deemed importer will provide data regarding their distance sales of imported goods to the customs authorities at the moment of the sale. The deemed importer will have the same information requirements as any other importer. 3. The proposed customs reform aims indeed at reinforcing the customs supervision of all goods entering and leaving the Union, including e-commerce. A new EU Customs Authority and an EU Customs Data Hub will centralise data to improve targeting of unsafe products entering the Union. The customs reform will therefore contribute to reducing the number of unsafe products entering the EU, in synergy with other EU legislation, such as the Digital Service Act 2 and the General Product Safety Regulation 3 . 1 https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/eu-customs-reform_en 2 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (Text with EEA relevance) PE/30/2022/REV/1. OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1–102. 3 Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on general product safety, amending Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 87/357/EEC (Text with EEA relevance). PE/79/2022/REV/1. OJ L 135, 23.5.2023, p. 1–51.”
  EU competences on consumer protection and product standards · Liability for online marketplaces
• “Thank you. Commissioner. I think this strategy is very welcomed. I think it has a lot of good measures, a lot of good ideas. So we welcome that in the renew group. Uh, I just have basically one question. Uh, several of my colleagues mentioned the member states, the lack of implementation, the lack of enforcement. And I totally share their view that that we need to do more on these issues, which actually are quite complicated because that's out of our hands, both the commission's and the and the parliaments. So my question to you is when we talk about, for instance, enforcement, what what can you do, uh, to, to make an even greater effort in this sense? Any ideas, any ideas we could support? We will be we will be backing you on this one, since enforcement seems to be one of the key issues in, you know, reaching some success in this area. Thank you very much.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Madam president, when we talk about praising things, there are lots of good things that I've heard from the president here today. We have to praise the fact that there are initiatives when it comes to the Citizens Omnibus Citizens Initiative. The left wing says that this couldn't be true, but it is true. There are some good proposals coming from that, von der Leyen stressed. The first thing in her speech she talked about competitiveness and that's something I am keen on. There are three things which are important. The 28th regime that we've been talking about for years, we have 27 sets of rules. That's one of the big problems. It's not good enough. We are drowning bureaucracy. We have to do something about that. And the talk of a business wallet. It's not just about reducing the bureaucracy. It's about having digital tools that companies can use, which can improve their competitiveness. The third thing I would like to raise BioSolutions. This has huge potential. We should invest. There are three times more investments in that in the US than Europe. We should invest more and that's initiatives which are very welcome. Commissioner, we will be there. That it's where the friends that you can rely on, not the extreme wings of this parliament.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “First of all, thank you. Thank you for finally taking this step towards greater cyber security through the Cyber Security Act. We've been talking about this since 2019, and the fraud system has changed dramatically, and therefore now is the right time to take action. There are not so many people present for this very important discussion of a vital piece of draft legislation, but it's good to see some people present. This is a good start. We will be able to build on this basis, and I think that we've heard a lot of positive comments so far, which is very constructive. Obviously, within the Cyber Security Agency, we need to have suitable resources, which means that we need to move faster. That includes issuing authorisations for cyber products. And therefore, I'm delighted to hear the commissioner saying that everything is going to be simplified. As we proceed. Therefore, we need to look at what technologies we have and how we can better protect our infrastructure. This is incredibly important and therefore I look forward to working together with you. Thank you very much.”
  Scope of EU cybersecurity obligations
• “Commissioner, Minister, about a year we've been arguing about simplification and omnibuses, and a majority of us have succeeded in getting. The omnibus is on the road, but we still have the largest task ahead of us, making the single market deeper. And we don't agree on how to do that. While we're simplifying and removing rules, we still need to build on new tools that makes the single market a reality for our businesses. And that's where EU business wallet on our phones is what we need. Here, companies could share information with their partners, with authorities that would remove bureaucracy and make it much easier to be a business, and we should think bigger. The 28 scheme will be that step. We need just one EU set of rules instead of 27 different ones. It sounds really easy. It should have been done a long time ago, but there hasn't been a political will to do so. So let's stop arguing and get moving. We're ready in renew. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you very much. And welcome, Karina. I'd like to echo what you said about simplification. And also on regulation. You talked about a paradox, You said you want to simplify, but also stricter regulations. And we've seen that in this House as well. Of course we want simplification. And the renew group has been calling for that. But at the same time, we need to acknowledge that we need many new regulations to deal with the problems that we have to deal with. So how can we strike this balance between simplification and regulation? How can we ensure that we find responses to questions and provide for simpler rules? And so I'd like to ask you to be as specific as possible in your answer.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “The commissioner colleagues? Well, I had brought along a speech, but I have no reason to read from it. I am furious at the Parliament and what happened here today. I came to discuss the free trade agreement with India. But a few hours ago, here in this Parliament, we shot ourselves so badly in the foot that we can barely limp forward. The Mercosur agreement is something that everybody should realise is the way forward. But apparently the majority in this Parliament does not see things this way. We heard now allowed important steps to be lost here with our trade partners. On the same day that Donald Trump is humiliating us all in Davos. We seem unable to recruit partners. This won't put an end to the Mercosur issue, but we do have to discuss our ties to India. I hope we will be able to address this quickly, and I look forward to hearing what our commissioner. Can say about this.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. Chair. I'm up here. Yeah. Thank you, Stefan, so much for for being here again. You have certainly been efficient in presenting important proposals lately, both the clean industrial deal and the omnibus proposal. We have also been busy working on on the theme. As you know, last week we published two proposals related to the simplification agenda. Uh, I was happy to see that there were many similarities between the first omnibus package and our papers. Uh, to me, it feels like we are quite aligned. And what should be done to to simplify things with the current legislation. Uh, both of us want to cut the reporting. We want to give companies proper time to implement and make life easier for for SMEs. We also have some proposals on enforcement, on governance. As you know, we want to ensure that legislation adopts a well thought out through impact assessments and sandboxes, where the effects of planned legislation can be tested. So far, so good. Uh, my question to you, uh, relates to the enforcement part, which is the one that we have fewer proposals on so far, and maybe also because it's the tricky part, so to speak, because what can be done? We want to strengthen the role of the Commission and the commissioner responsible for simplification and enforcement. That's your call it Dombrovsky, whom I actually met just a few hours ago to talk with him about it. So my question to you is, do you agree that that Dombrovsky needs more muscles in the sense that resources and tools to, to to oversee and ensure proper implementation of EU legislation. And this is also, of course, covered to the related to the fact that this is about the the member States and what to do with the member States that are not implementing efficiently enough. And what when we talk to companies, they are always complaining about the lack of harmonization and the lack of enforcement. So we do have a problem here. And just to know your your thoughts on that, how to be better when it comes to enforcement. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you for the work, Stefan. Uh, this competitiveness fund is very welcomed by us in renewal as an example of the kind of simplification measures we need. So thank you for that. Ahead of this presentation for the next MFF, renew, uh, adopted a position paper setting out concrete measures to make EU funding more accessible, more user friendly and better harmonized. So my it was therefore very pleased to see that your proposal includes the creation of a single rule book. So that I guess is, uh, is a very good step. So my question to you will be seen from the applicant's perspective, how will this work in practice, especially given that that some programs such as the horizon, will remain fully independent, as it says the paper, uh, or others partially so. So so how come? How will this work in practice? Will applicants generally experience a unified system with one set of rules. A single entry point. A simplified reporting or will they still have to navigate separate calls? So this is this would be my question. And then finally a concrete idea from our position paper. Have you considered making audit and reporting requirements proportionate to the size, scale and risk level of these of these companies? Thank you very much.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “President, Commissioner, Europe has a huge pool of talent to dated capital, but we are not winning the global tech race. Why? If we're not able to tap the potential we have in terms of learning and investment, then we won't have innovation as a driver of growth. We need more than pilot projects and PowerPoints. We need a strong single market and capital. A lot of countries like Denmark, Spain are moving towards that, but we need a common European solution. There are too many rules. There's a fear of technology and that's holding our businesses back. We need to get rid of the weights dragging us down and use the technological potentials such as AI in that way. Innovation technology can pay for the many expenses of the Drudge Report, and that is something we liberals see as a potential possibility. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Commissioner. Minister. We've discussed this on numerous occasions, and every time I think. It's in the end it's consumers and companies that play because no solutions are found. The drug report has shown us very clearly that we still find ourselves in a very, very difficult position right now. And that's why for our Greens here and, uh, those from the far left put this aside. What's the deregulation issue? It's not a whether or it's simply clear that what we have to do, but it doesn't mean that we ought not invest, or that the other wonderful ideas of the drug report have to be tossed aside. No, no, quite the opposite. I think it is really leads nowhere when we don't discuss exactly what deregulation means when we take on board different ideologies. My solution is that we have to modernize, we have to implement, and we have to simplify. Those are the three key words here, I think in our group. There's a task force for competitiveness. The strategies are good. But the way that we're dealing with regulation extremely complicated. I think we have to have the courage to come to an end to the particular system that exists with regulations and with rules. We need perhaps an omnibus that would revisit this. I think it's I think we have to implement. We can put aside certain details. We have to make sure that we have what we need. The essential. I will.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you for taking up this this very important debate. Uh, an issue, I think that, uh, seen from a renew, uh, Europe point of view, this is by far one of the most important files that we're looking at in 2026 or should I say two files, because of course, we are discussing the the first one now, but also the second one. Uh, even more important, to the extent that this, this committee hopefully will be leading the work on the, on the on the second part of of of this, I won't go into details about why we have two, uh, packages and two files, so to speak, but now it's here and we have to take that as a starting point. I would say that that biotechnology is of course, one of Europe's strongest assets. Uh, my, uh, my colleague, Miss Flemming Hansen already pointed to that. And I'm absolutely supporting this view. And if we are failing to turn this world class science that we that we are possessing into to growth, jobs and manufacturing at scale, we we really missed one of the big ones. So let's let's keep it that way. And the good news is, of course, that we already have a good report, own initiative reports, uh, where the the responsible groups in this House, uh, are agreeing on most uh, basically on the scale issue, which is of course, uh, very important the scope that we need, uh, had to be as broad as possible, and I hope that will, that will, uh, sort of, uh, come up to come into light when we, uh, when we see the second package, uh, at least later this year.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• “Yeah. Just, uh, just a quick follow up. Um, you know, Minister, that we also, have concerns about, uh, what we call this the 28th regime when it comes to to to legislation. I just wonder if you have any specific plans on the 28th regime when it comes to the area, because I think this is this could be a way out of a lot of problems. If we could if we can start there and let the area be the the space where this 28th regime could actually blossom. Uh, your mind's on that. Any thoughts on that?”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you. Chair and commissioner. For starters. Let's make one thing clear from the beginning. Europe and India both need a trade agreement. Full stop. It's about strengthening the European economy, but also about getting a closer ties with India in an unsafe world. India is, as stated, the biggest democracy in the world and is a country that is growing rapidly. So a stronger partnership with India will obviously strengthen our green transition and help millions of Indians get out of poverty, which is positive for everyone. I imagine even here in the European Parliament, where we tend to disagree about a lot of things. So as in the previous mandate period, I learned a lot of things. I learned that it's important to speak other people's language culturally and politically, because India is a proud and ambitious people who want partnerships instead of charity. So if we want good results, we must meet them as equal partners. And it will take time. But let's not be naive. India might be extending a hand towards Europe, but they keep the other hand with a firm grip around Russia and, uh, and China. So there are quite a number of challenges ahead of us. But of course we must be aware that India will make demands as well. But let's get on with it. Let's finalize this deal because I believe that it will deliver positive results. Thank you so much.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “But anyway, that's that's okay. Thank you, chair. And let me start by thanking the rapporteur for for a very solid work so far on this file. On behalf of Avenue, I can say that we have high expectations for this file. Uh, for this idea of, uh, of a wallet, I think it can be if it's made, uh, fine. Uh, it can be a small revolution in digital, uh, bureaucracy. Uh, so, so I think we're looking forward to that. I think the wallet has the potential to become a cornerstone of a truly functioning single market. Uh, today, as we all know. Cross-border business in the EU is still too complex. The business models can change that by enabling companies to share verified information across borders and interact more easily with both public authorities and business partners. The principle of equivalence of company data across member states is therefore, of course essential. It reduces duplication, lowers administrative burden, and makes cross-border business significantly easier. But let us be clear this is only the starting point. We must ensure that the framework we built is usable, scalable, and market driven, allowing both public and private solutions to to develop. At the same time, we need to address concerns from some member States and the rapporteur has already stated this. Regarding costs and of implementation, I think these concerns are legitimate. A more gradual implementation can be part of the solution, and we will, of course come up with amendments on this. But it should not come at the expense of ambition or innovation. And that is important. An important point. Finally, we should not overlook the external dimension. Countries like Japan, Brazil and India are already advancing in this area. And having recently been in India, it's clear to me that that the global standards are emerging rapidly. This creates an opportunity for the EU to lead and to cooperate and to strengthen trade relations through interoperability and mutual recognition. If we get this right, the business world will not just simplify administration. It will strengthen Europe's competitiveness. And I look forward to to this work. Thank you.”
  Electronic identity
• “Mr. Commissioner, colleagues we see quite often we talk about the fact that we have this internal market, but actually we have 27 different markets. So this suggests this now is a proposal to do something different. These are historical times. So let's make sure that we act historically and make sure that this 28th regime I don't like the name at all. But in any case, let's make sure that this 28th regime actually be historic as well. Let's try to get beyond all the different talk that we've had about mere simplification. This is not an issue of more or less European regulation, but better European regulation. I think we can agree on that. And I believe that both the rapporteur and the commissioner would agree with me. So we have this historical chance to do something about this. Now there's two important things. One of them, we have to make sure that that we listen to small companies who tell us that they're busy. They can't waste time on those usual regulations. So let's try to make sure that we can do this quickly here in Parliament. And second, let's be brave and take some chances and not bury our own selves in bureaucracy, which of course we suffer from as well. I hope that we do a very good job and I look forward to contributing. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Dear colleagues, Commissioner, let's be honest. There are many areas in European legislation that deserve a workover, especially the digital legislation. And that's why talking about digital simplification package is impossible without talking about simplification in general. We have so much Double legislation, adverse requirements and rules that are not equivalent with the measures that they are supposed to legislate about. This is our chance to clear House, and that should be taken into consideration in these negotiations. And yes, I can hear a lot of worry from the left wing here in the House. But I also note that especially the green group seem to take this issue seriously. I've been a part of these negotiations, and of course it's important to not complicate things further just because you're trying to create something new. But we must recognise that this is all about simplification, and the digital omnibus is our chance to take a first positive step in about onto a new way of regulating. And in the Liberal group we wish to cooperate. We wish to be constructive. But let's agree on the premise first. The main goal here is simplification. We must all bear that in mind. Thank you.”
  Digitalization of public governance & administration
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you, Commissioner, for being here. I'm right in front of you. Hello. Uh, well, uh, we're always running the risk of when you get to the second round here that you have some repeating stuff. So you might, you might think that this is um, this is stuff that you already answered to, but nevertheless, I think that it's urgent because we are in a position day by day now, where we can see that it's also a matter of speed. Now, it's not only a matter of fine words and speeches, it's also a matter of getting things done. So I will also touch upon the simplification issue. Uh, we have, uh, we will present as a group a lot of very concrete actions and suggestions to actions when it comes to simplification. But we have a debate internally. You might be able to help us a little on the definition of simplification. Uh, you might have heard the debates around deregulation and, and how one talks about deregulation compared to simplification. So running the risk of being a bit nerdy, could you go into this a little more in detail and give us your idea, your definition of simplification, what does it take to simplify and what does it take to do it immediately? Because I'm sure that you agree with me that it's urgent or urgent stuff right now.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “I'll try. To.Be. Very brief then. Well, thank you for being here, Commissioner. And thank you for for presenting the Competitiveness Fund. I think it's very welcome. But ahead of the presentation of the the next MFF, my group, Renew Europe adopted a position paper setting out concrete measures to make EU funding more accessible and more user friendly and better harmonised. And I know that you would agree to some of these things, but but my, my my question is, uh, uh, seen from the applicant's perspective, how will how will this work in practice if we are going to to, to pursue these, these matters and these, these, uh, suggestions, I hope that you've seen them. And finally, concrete idea from our position paper, have you considered making audit and reporting requirements proportionate to the size, scale and risk level? Thanks.”
  Conditions to access EU budget