Marie TOUSSAINT

Policy topics Marie TOUSSAINT is active on

What Marie TOUSSAINT has said (48)

• 2025-10-15 “E-004067/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU is closely monitoring the trials of Karabakh Armenians in Baku and calls on Azerbaijan to respect due process and the rights of detainees, including to adequate medical care, and to ensure that the allegations made against them are investigated in a transparent manner. The EU has also advocated to address these issues as part of confidence-building measures between the parties. The EU continues to stress the importance of guaranteeing fair trial standards and adequate detention conditions, in line with Azerbaijan’s international commitments. In this context, the EU welcomes the latest visit of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to Azerbaijan from 22 September to 3 October 2025 1 . The EU furthermore welcomes that the International Committee of the Red Cross will continue to engage with the Azerbaijani authorities to support persons protected under international humanitarian law in line with its mandate and Azerbaijan’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions 2 . The trials at the Baku Military Court touch on the much larger question of achieving lasting and sustainable peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is crucial that both countries continue to make progress on their path towards full normalisation of relations, a process that the EU will continue to support. The European External Action Service remains at the disposal of the European Parliament and its Members for dialogue and consultations, as well as to provide information and updates on the current situation and developments. 1 https://www.coe.int/en/web/cpt/-/council-of-europe-anti-torture-committee-cpt-carries-out-a-visit-toazerbaijan-1. 2 https://www.icrc.org/en/news-release/icrc-closes-delegation-republic-azerbaijan.”
  EU-Azerbaijan relations · EU-Armenia relations
• 2025-06-23 “E-002522/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission 1.The Commission has no current plan to develop a ‘Vocational Education and Training (VET) Europass’. Instead, it developed the European classification of skills, competences and occupations (ESCO) as a common language bridging the labour market and the education and training. ESCO describes 13939 skills and knowledge terms in 28 languages including detailed collections for green, digital, research and transversal skills. ESCO can be used to annotate learning outcomes of qualifications, including VET curricula and, as a multilingual labour market standard, it supports the mutual recognition and validation of learning paths across the EU. 2. Europass is currently funded through the Erasmus+ programme, while the European Employment Services (EURES) network is funded through the European Social Fund+ (ESF+). Member State’s reforms of education and training systems can be supported under several EU programs, notably the ESF+, the Technical Support Instrument (TSI) and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). Erasmus+ focuses on measures for transnational cooperation. 3. The Commission has no competence for the harmonisation of training programmes. Under the Union of Skills initiative, the Commission has proposed the Skills Portability Initiative, to enhance the portability of skills and qualifications across the EU, regardless of where they were acquired. Building on the Implementation Report of the Professional Qualifications Directive 1 , the Commission will also consider actions to improve recognition processes for regulated professions, in particular by leveraging digital tools. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2020:191:FIN.”
  Focus of EU policy on education (shaping workers vs citizens)
• 2025-06-23 “E-002521/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission The Commission acknowledges the importance of strengthening vocational education and training (VET) systems in the EU and improving professional and social mobility. Regarding European criteria in national training frameworks, the 2018 Council Recommendation on a European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships 1 aims to ensure that apprenticeships meet minimum quality requirements. It also refers to enhancing opportunities for mobility of apprentices. In addition, the Council Recommendation Europe on the Move 2 (2024) provides policy guidance on apprentice mobility. Finally, the Commission supports Member States and stakeholders through the European Alliance for Apprenticeships in establishing quality apprenticeships and enhancing the mobility of apprentices. On the link between VET and higher education, the recent Union of Skills communication 3 stresses the importance of strengthening VET programmes. This includes addressing the challenges of fragmented national training offers and supporting smoother transitions between VET and higher education, in line with the 2020 Council Recommendation on VET for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience 4 , which emphasises the importance of modular VET curricula to support smoother transitions for learners to higher education. These objectives will be reinforced by the forthcoming EU VET Strategy. The Commission is also exploring the launch of a European VET diploma to support mobility and the recognition of learning outcomes across borders. Furthermore, the ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) Users’ guide, which is currently being revised, will also address VET, where relevant. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=oj:JOC_2018_153_R_0001. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_202403364. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0090. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=oj:JOC_2020_417_R_0001.”
  Focus of EU policy on education (shaping workers vs citizens)
• 2025-06-10 “E-002316/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. Commission Recommendation 2014/193 1 provided recommendations to Member States so that mitigation measures for reduction of cadmium levels in food, in particular in cereals, vegetables and potatoes, are progressively implemented by farmers and food business operators. As cadmium is taken up by plants from the soil, avoiding the use of phosphate fertilisers containing high levels of cadmium, is such a measure for avoiding elevated concentrations of cadmium in edible crops. The Soil Monitoring Law 2 , provisionally agreed between co-legislators, requires that Member States monitor and assess the concentration of a set of heavy metals, including cadmium, in the soil. Member States should also establish criteria for healthy soil condition for these contaminants. Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2023/915 3 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food sets maximum levels for cadmium in a wide range of foods, including cereals, potatoes and leaf vegetables. These maximum levels are applicable in all Member States and guarantee a reduction in consumer exposure to cadmium. 2. Phosphates play an essential and irreplaceable role in plant growth and food production. While phosphate fertilisers are not the sole source of cadmium contamination in soil, limits on cadmium levels have been set in Regulation 2019/1009 4 . Furthermore, phosphorus can also be recovered from different waste streams, free of cadmium, for the production of phosphate fertilisers. Thus, the EU is working towards disengaging from the sole use of phosphate rock to produce fertilisers and efforts are made to promote the use of secondary phosphoruscontaining materials, which should at the same time reduce dependency on imported phosphate rock. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2014/193/oj. 2 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law) COM/2023/416 final. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/915/oj. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1009/oj.”
  Use of fertilisers · Soil protection policy
• 2025-02-03 “P-000461/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission Commission Regulations 1 concerning European Business Statistics define how Member States transmit Structural Business Statistics data (SBS) to Eurostat. Eurostat receives data for Martinique and French Guiana but not New Caledonia 2 . Validation procedures and quality checks apply to such data whatever their origin. Currently Eurostat has no special observations regarding the quality of SBS and Business Demographics data for Martinique and French Guiana. The Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities 3 indicates that national competition authorities are generally considered to be well placed to deal with competition matters, if the conduct at issue is implemented within its territory and has substantial, direct, actual or foreseeable effects on competition mainly within its territory 4 . The Commission invites the Honourable Members to contact the French Competition Authority, which has long made the competitive situation in overseas territories the focus of its action 5 . Moreover, the French Competition Authority can apply French law provisions which are aimed specifically at addressing possible restrictions to competition and the consequences thereof in overseas territories 6 . In accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, the concept of abuse of a dominant position is an objective concept 7 to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Commission cannot therefore answer the question. 1 Commission Regulation 2019/2152 (‘EBS Regulation’) and Regulation (EU) 2020/1197 (‘EBS General Implementing Act’). 2 See https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/21a2f3ed-34c1-4248-9ead-f0b330ec3bf2?lang=en and https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/6161b543-46a2-4b97-8a85-c6735d7ac9a9?lang=en 3 Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p. 43-53, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52004XC0427%2802%29 4 Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p. 43-53, paras. 8-10. 5 See, for a recent example, French Competition Authority, press release of 18 February 2025, available at: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/fr/communiques-de-presse/saisie-par-le-gouvernement-lautorite-rendraun-avis-sur-les-marges-des 6 See, for example, Article L.752-27 of the French Commercial Code. 7 See for example judgment of the Court of 25 March 2021, Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission, C152/19P, EU:C:2021:238, para. 41.”
  EU intervention in private pricing of medicines
• “Madam president, Europe is not doing well, and I'm afraid you bear some responsibility for that. You've been full of promises to the European Parliament, but it sounds a bit hollow. You see liberalism, neoliberalism as the only way. But this has led us to neo imperialism from Russia, China and now the US. You signed an agreement with Donald Trump, the 750 billion that you shamefully promised him for his climate killing energy. This man wants Europe as his vassal. So what is your Europe for? Recording violence which occurs elsewhere in the world? While we have social environmental crises, Europe's voice is stifled worldwide. It is late, but the time has come. Turn your back on austerity, which has led to precarity. Uh, let us put climate and social justice as our compass, defend international law and defend, uh, Benedetto Scuderi and other parliamentarians who are fighting in Gaza and Ukraine and elsewhere for humanitarian reasons.”
  Von der Leyen
• “Colleagues, once again, we need to vote against a motion of censure which has been tabled, this time in the name of fighting Mercosur. We know that Jordan Bardella does not defend workers or farmers. No, he weaponizes the anger that they have never proposes credible solutions. This motion is a simple parody of resistance. But Madam President, Commissioner, this motion exists because the commission has failed last summer by accepting an agreement with the United States, which we now see, and we now see how absurd it was. This this is what happened. National parliaments have not been given the right to express their views. You've therefore chosen to force it through. Have you learned nothing from history? History which has seen brutal decisions taken by elites against the people sacrificing, sacrificing European farmers. We have trade agreements which weaken our health norms, which lead to unfair competition for farmers and also accelerate deforestation in South America. Mercosur is incompatible with the European Union's climate objectives and the pledges for just green transition for European citizens. Mercosur is a bad agreement which will resolve nothing. It will not deal with proper sovereignty in Europe. We need to produce on our and our land what we already have. And there are many criticisms of Mercosur, but we will not allow the these concerns to be manipulated by the far right. There is no they have no legitimacy when it comes to defending farmers and workers. So we say no to your motion of censure, because we cannot simply give you the support that you demand. We don't want to see the same Europe as you, a vassalized Europe which gives into Putin and Trump, and it hides its submission to those in power. We say no to the tragedy of chaos. And in the anti-European far right. This is how we will defend European interests. Let's not focus on toxic relations. We should have a clean, clear line in favour of our values. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “(16:16:14 – 16:20:32): Thanks a lot, for giving me the floor. So I'm the green, shadow on this opinion. And just to tell you that I had the honor to be the green reporteur of this opinion during the last reform of the Denny. We were gonna work this time with a new team, which will be interesting with new arguments and new approaches, which is, good. But the first thing I want to say, except from, thanking Michel Visig for reminding, of the climate obligations and and cost of life and and energy prices just right now. But I would like, first of all, to thank the commission for the work that was done because I think a lot was drawn out of our discussions during the last mandate, and we have moved a lot in the direction that was given by the NV Committee during the last mandate, especially on governance, on stronger central planning and on the need to accelerate the transition towards green transition. The proposal explicitly on courage is also looking at non wire solutions before building new infrastructures, which means also spending money, which is a very good news and I think quite smart. And is also stronger on the climate approach since the PCI and PMI listed in the network development plans must now align with the 2,030 climate goals, which is also something that is smart both in climate approach, but also in the money approach that we need to have. In that regard, I would remind the colleague from the third that the member states have the right to choose their energetic mix, but they also have the right to be smart, and they have 1 duty, which is to protect their citizens from climate change, which should never be forgotten. Now maybe a few points that we'll bring forward during the examination of the amendments. But for us, the Greens, governance has always been a key priority. We have an issue with transparency. We have an issue with, well, the gas incumbents taking the money that they get through, the fact that they model themselves the scenario. And I mean, this is something that cannot work really well. We are happy with the governance, as I said. But still, we remain concerned that the TSOs and SOE and No, successor of ExoG, still retain a central role in the infrastructure needs identification, which again raises an issue when the money has to be spent. And a concern that was already flagged by, our climate board, but also by ACER. So we should be careful about that. We want to and we will defend the fact to have more transparency and independent oversight, over the network system analysis and also over the public money that will be given, of course. Just 1 point to end up with governance, but separating electricity and hydrogen PCIs into 2 delegated acts is absolutely essential and we will also work in that direction. As you have understood, we want to increase the role of ES ABCC, sorry, to ensure the full alignment with the climate targets. And we are also quite worried of the current tendency in the EU to, well, you know, facilitate provisions on permitting and overriding public interest that needs to be looked at carefully. We cannot say everything is overriding public interest or nothing is anymore. So we'll need to to have a look a closer look at that. And then on sectoral priorities, TENE must be about electrification and renewable energy. Again, non wire solutions first. But we should prioritize domestic renewable hydrogen and not fossil based alternatives, which will be costly in the end. And that I think we cannot afford in the citizens either. We are also concerned that fossil gas projects remain in the TENE with Melita and Dismet. There is no argument, especially with the murder of Dafnekawana, Galicia, for those to stay there. This is just looking at the past and not looking at the future. And I want to be clear also with our report, nuclear energy has no place in this regulation. Thank you.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you. At the start of February, I sent you a specific question. And that was to ask for the full application of EU law in the French overseas territories in order to be able to effectively tackle high cost of living. So that was one reason. And it's due to the Banayoti Group, which has got more than 300 subsidiaries when it comes to shops in agriculture, DIY and so on. And that represents 50% of the average shopping basket of the people of Martinique. You were saying that you were not going to Investigate Anti-competition practices there because it was up to the French law to look at the competition in those areas. But I think that your answer is not enough when it comes to how serious the situation is. We need to have, um, whistleblowers to force GBH to publish their accounts. Now, our worries today are not just Martinique. They are concerning all of those overseas territories. What are they going to do in terms of this dominant position? We have been trying to take action against this profiteering, and we want to make sure that there is respect for these people, for justice and dignity. What are you going to do to make sure that the EU takes note?”
  EU Competition policy
• “You have the floor for one minute, colleagues. For the last few months, the far right who are here today? Well, few of them are have been continuing to call into question the strictions on businesses, sometimes with the idea that they are defending the European working class. The far right are often putting the climate crisis on the back burner, even while Europe is heating up. Weakening our carbon objectives is very serious. On the one hand, we have the far right who are cheeky enough to pretend that they're protecting the working class, while relegating them to the precarity that fossil fuel consumption relegates them to. And they keep saying that these companies who pollute don't have to pay. We need to be clear. Multinationals, ArcelorMittal or other groups have received more free quotas than their real emissions. They've been allowed to make billions in profits. That's the model that the far right wants to defend. You are defending those who pollute over those who are polluted. You're choosing shareholders rather than the working class. We are going to continue to fight you and the model you put forward.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Toussaint is the next speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, energy prices are skyrocketing once again. And yet we know that one out of ten households find it difficult to heat up their homes. And that is why we're thrilled that we got this energy package for our citizens. Let us be crystal clear. As long as Europe depends on fossil fuel imports, then our bills will also hinge on autocrats and geopolitical crises. And it will be companies raking in the profits. We prefer renewable energy. We prefer to give the power to citizens. We prefer to invest in the European economy and local economy, and to invest in renewable cooperatives and to have a lower bills. That's what we prefer. Now, at the same time, the European Commission wants to invest billions of euro in gas and hydrogen and C, C s plants, and these projects aren't close to the citizen. They increase our dependence on foreign fossil fuels. So it's not coherent. There is no consistency. Please reject the PCI list that will be submitted to the vote in March. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Dear colleagues, I too want to speak to the European right. I can't speak to the Commission, can I? You talk about simplification, but you are gutting the protection afforded to the European economy while we are under threat. You want to deregulate rather than sovereignty because you're proposing the abandonment of the rare tools we have which stop products made by Uyghurs forced labor from entering the market. There's also American shale gas coming in from the US, which is produced unfairly. And you say that this will help pull yourselves together. We do need simplification. We've all said that today. But you're not simplifying. You've decided to go at breakneck speed towards deregulation. You are undermining our sovereignty. You're undermining our values and the green transition towards a sustainable economy, because you are taking apart what we built. And that puts off investors who are already on the path of change. So you are punishing virtue and you are encouraging vice. You say that companies won't comply with their Climate obligations, but they can continue to do business as usual. But should we encourage people who harm the environment? You want an 80% drop in the number of companies covered by transparency rules, such as the mining industry, a high risk industry? Does that make sense? No, you can't pull the wool over our eyes. If you choose to work with the far right, you will be choosing not to cut red tape, but to extend impunity. And we will fight back against that kind of policy.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “The study has been launched but with. Whilst awaiting the results, the Commission has decided nonetheless to increase it twice in five months in honey and therefore they are violating all of this. A scientific know how that we have. By increasing the MRLs in honey, we could wonder what the commission is trying to do. Are they trying to protect farmers who are asking for a ban on this product that kills their bees? Essentially, the majority of honey that is produced in Europe does actually respect the MRL that existed. So the winner of this commission of the Commission's decision, because we know that it will be producers from out of from without the EU, which would allow foreign producers to have unfair competition. So my question is, is this to protect beekeepers in Europe or to assist foreign producers, including the US, giving an umpteenth gift to Donald Trump. So we will shan't weaken our standards for US business, preventing us from protecting ecosystems, EU children and EU businesses and farmers. And therefore now I know that the conservatives would want to protect beekeepers. We know that the EPP, the left and the Greens, obviously, they have all shown that protection of pollinators is a fundamental pillar of our food security. Therefore, I should like to call on all to vote in favour of this objective and to call the commission to assume its responsibility. Precisely what we are asking. We do not want an increase in the MRL, but a decrease so that we can protect our bees and our children.”
  Maximum residue levels
• “Commissioner. Finally, we have this long awaited plan to respond to the European housing crisis. We have over a million people who are street homeless, and several million are poorly housed in houses that are too small, too expensive, poorly insulated or damaged by construction faults, and many others are struggling to pay the bills. And Commissioner, you do know how to tell the housing crisis as it is. But if I look at how your plan might benefit the construction industry or investment funds, then I see that there is a key absence here and that is the people at the heart of it. Where is the objective? What about the 30% rent? What's happened to a binding right to homing to homes or against evictions? And what are the solutions to deal with poor housing? Uninhabitable housing? Commissioner, this plan seems to have been drafted in offices, but not really on the ground. So prove me wrong. Let's make sure that the money really gets to the people who need it. Let's ensure that tenants have a right to deal with rogue landlords and excess rents, and stand up for poorer areas. Would you accept a blue card from Mr. Oliveira?”
  EU housing policy
• “The European Commission is now using the European Semester as its sole tool for guiding the member states. To push them towards more competitiveness rather than improving the lives of European citizens. But we need to understand that the objectives are not incompatible. We should have a key objective at the heart of this measure, making sure that we're not depleting the Earth's resources beyond the natural ceiling that exists and have resources, new own resources. Madam Commissioner, we should have measures to fight poverty in the European Union. Will the Commission be asking Member States to ensure that their budgets do not contribute to further precarious living conditions and inequalities because no budgetary policy should be adopted if it makes it harder for European citizens. If the climate regulation and moving beyond the limits of the planet's resources should be a guiding principle for our budgetary decision and ensure that we make our investments accordingly, because otherwise we will be having a budget that pays no real attention to the real constraints.”
  European Semester (social dimension)
• “Thanks a lot. Thanks a lot. And I can only share at the same time. Um, my gratitude for this meeting being taken and, uh, my disappointment in front of the empty room and that we are sitting in two. And I want to apologize on our behalf to our experts. And thanks a lot for coming here. I have an your interventions raised a lot of questions for me in a bit different pieces. So I'm sorry if that seems a bit, um, dispersed, but that's how I'm going to I'm going to act. And I also want to thank the commission for the presentation that was made. Some of the points I will raise will somehow be directed to you as well. So just for you to know, um, you talked a lot on very the climate issue. We talked about cement, but we also talked about, well, alternative ways of building or so on. And we know that we have a lot of, I don't want to say ancestral, but still somehow ancestral ancestral knowledge to build houses, um, adapted to different geographies of EU territory, um, that we don't know how to use yet. I wanted to know if you had any advice on this specific issue, a local materials? Um, yeah. Other kinds of materials that we do not use. As for now, but that could be developed in the European Union. Um, second issue that, uh, we mentioned a future proof and also community housing, but you did not, if I'm not mistaken, really address the issue of citizen led and community energy communities that is written in the law.”
  Construction products
• “Thank you colleagues. This is the second time in five months that the European Commission is increasing the MRL of acetamiprid in honey. Yes. You've understood correctly. Two times in five months in July, 0.05mg per kilo to Three is today all the way up to one milligram by a kilo. That is multiplying by 20. Our exposition to acetamiprid. Honey, that's why today we would like to oppose the European Commission. We would like to formally object. It is a persistent neonicotinoid insecticide. We know the horrible effects on pollinators and bees. Just a few months back, the Efsa raised the alarm of the health impact of of acetate on the development of infants and their brains. So not to multiply it by 20, but to divide by five. The exposition. We thought that the Commission would be wise. They decided to to reduce MRLs for vegetables. So then I'd like to know why. Why did they increase it for honey. It is a food that children like. Is it because of Agrobusiness elbow, for example, the North American business that made the request? No independent study has shown the lack of toxicity of acetamiprid. On the contrary, many have shown that there is a neurotoxic effect on human health, and studies show that it could have an endocrine disruptor effect. The danger of acetamiprid is been raised by a number of doctors. For example, the French Guild of Doctors and as well as the Association to Fight Cancer and patients associations that have been rallying to ban this substance. And just last year, some 2 million citizens and the French Constitutional Council. So Efsa has requested a solid study on the neurotoxic nature of acetamiprid.”
  Maximum residue levels
• “We need to make the digital giants pay. Google, Amazon, TikTok, meta and others. Those companies. Take our data, they spy on us. Ride roughshod over human rights. And there are tax havens even inside Europe. Commissioner, whilst Europeans are finding it hard to make ends meet, the tech bros, Bezos and so on. Carry on. Uh, gathering billions and they pay pretty much no tax. Is that fair? No. This needs to end in the European Parliament. Repeatedly, we have called upon these digital giants to be internationally taxed, but at European level, particularly without further ado, a 5% European digital services tax would be 37 billion annually from 2026. Can we reasonably do without that money, that precious money? But, uh, the warhorse Trump, uh, gets the commission to fall back. The question is more urgent than ever. Commissioner, do you intend to stand up to Donald Trump, defend European sovereignty in the face of the US? What concrete steps do you have to confront the tech giants?”
  Own EU resources
• “Hello. Sharon McGuinness. Thank you for being with us here today and for giving this presentation. I will follow my colleague Mrozek's thoughts in Brussels. At the moment, we're talking a lot about the Commission's desire to introduce a simplification omnibus on around chemicals. This will impact the studies and what you're doing here around cosmetics, for example. And everything you've done around packaging. So my first question. Miss McGuinness, is how and a you and your agency and everyone who works there work through these difficult times and continue to work whilst people are questioning your movement itself. The second question that I would like to ask is around PFAS. You published. You publish the results online regularly, but can you talk about it here as well? My third question is similar to what my EPP colleague said. And it's around polymers. You know as well as I do that when it comes to Uh, reach. Previously, there were, uh, criteria around new polymer substances, but reach has not asked for anything when it comes to polymers. When in USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, they're asking for new information and criteria for new polymers. This is for both new and old polymers. Why is this? Because these products have harmful effects on the environment and on human health. So reach may have been a step backwards in Europe. Do you think it would be good and constructive for Europe to integrate polymers within the reach revision? And do you think that the criteria are easy to define? A study from the European Commission in 2020 said that the economic benefits That there were economic benefits of these criteria. So do you think that the criteria are are good and can you define them for concerning polymers as well as for monomers? Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Colleagues. Commissioner. The right to fit housing should be a fundamental right. But unfortunately, this is not the case for millions of Europeans. For millions of homeless people and tens of millions who suffer from poor housing and live in houses like saunas, Europe is affected to more and more heat waves that are of increasing intensity. People don't know where to go to breathe to avoid heart problems. This summer, over 1000 people died prematurely in Spain. Commissioner, and I hope you pass this on to your colleagues. Health should really be our guiding compass when it comes to European housing policy, we have to fight against energy insecurity, ensuring that we renovate our houses to provide a cool housing for those who need it, to ensure that everyone can have access to a fan. To ensure ensure that everyone has access to green spaces, particularly in more deprived areas. I didn't grow up in Saint-Germain-des-Prés. I grew up in, uh, housing estates in Bordeaux. Um. Europe has to act. Otherwise it will not be assisting those who need it.”
  EU housing policy
• “What's your experience about it? We do greatly believe that this works. But I would like to have your idea on especially on renovations issues. Of course. Um, how does that work? Last on climate, we've been talking a lot about CO2 emissions. But climate is not only about CO2 emissions, this is also about land take. And I think you addressed that when you said that the voters might be unhappy if we gather people at the same place and at the same time. This is an absolute requisite that we address this issue. Um, and you didn't really address it so much. So I would really be glad to hear from you, all of you, actually, because this is also an issue of architecture. And how do we deal with this? Um, and I really hope that this is going to be in the report that this committee is going to adopt. Um, then I have two other issues. The first one is about health. Um, and I really hope also that our committee will take a closer look to the health and housing issues, which are numerous. We have interior internal pollution, external pollution, a lot of diseases coming from, um, unhealthy houses, inadequate housing, um, and also mental health issues that we really need to, to address. When you talk about future proof houses, um, what's your uptake on this? What's your look? How do you address this? I would be also really curious.”
  Construction products
• “Colleagues, Commissioner, first of all, I'm looking at the far right group that has demanded for this debate. Frankly, you say that you're patriots and you say that you want to save the automotive industry in Europe. But this is not true. You are against the Green Pact and you are fighting against the European general interest, not only against the climate, but also against the economy and our rights. Over the past ten years, Chinese that China has taken over the chain of values and has also produced many batteries. European companies have been relocated, have been sacrificed, and nothing has. Nothing of this has to do with the 2035 objectives. 100 000 employments were jobs were destroyed between 2010 and 2020, and that was before the adoption of the 2035 agenda. So you are saying that you want to defend the automotive industry. But but the truth is you are a that the shareholders are obsessed with short term profits that have to be extremely high despite the loss of jobs and a counterproductive a strategic strategy for commerce. Which one which aims at short term returns on highly polluting, on highly on highly polluting vehicles over the smaller, less polluting vehicles? We need investment so that things can become more affordable with public funding and a European preference that is crucial. And for workers, we have to not forget that they are driving the automotive industry in Europe. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “There is action that can be taken and support cities that are asking for help here. Second question, public procurement. You touched on this in your introduction and that's part of your portfolio. What is your goal in terms of how to build a framework for public money? We want to make sure that this financing is used to support real social housing, and not just to feed into the free market construction costs. Is there going to be a rent cap anywhere to ensure that we're achieving the aims we set out for ourselves in terms of public procurement? And I have a question to on unfair competition. And the speaker apologizes for the speed. Let me slow down, says the speaker. One of the major issues is that of health, of living in a salubrious Home. You are aware that people are dying in their homes. People die because of Legionella, Legionnaire's disease, salmonella. And we do have an option open to us, which is of setting out the right kind of rules to make sure that homes are fit to be lived in. So my question to you is, have you already started working on this, or will you be including these kinds of aims in the work that you're doing? Or are you willing to support us on a plan for healthy homes in Europe? Thank you.”
  EU housing policy
• “Madam Commissioner. It's not poverty. That's shameful. It's abandonment. Now, this was reflects the experience of 93 million Europeans today. Abandonment. It's a political choice to allow people to remain in poverty. But it's a political choice to eradicate it. Today, we're calling for the first ever European strategy for the eradication of poverty. So let's rise to this challenge. It can't just be a declaration of intent. It has to be binding. You can't set objectives that are ambitious, but at the same time relegate social issues to a second issue behind competitiveness and other and other issues on the agenda. We will not eradicate poverty if there is no budget. And if we do not have all of our policies behind it. No European policy should worsen the situation of those who are most disadvantaged. That is the basis of the strategy, and nothing should be done for people at risk of poverty without their involvement. It's thanks to them that we can understand that poverty is not just financial poverty, but it's a question of dignity. Permanent stigmatisation is experienced by people at risk of poverty, and that has to be condemned by the law. Human dignity. Dignity is, affected by poverty. Let's eradicate it.”
  Minimum income harmonisation at EU level
• “(17:40:10 – 17:43:48): Yes. Thank you. And I want to apologize, Kiara, that she was not able to be here, but she indeed gave me her remarks that I think won't surprise the rapporteur. But I first want to underline that she really thanks you for your draft report, especially since, when compared to the one from the commission, we think it's going in the right direction. I will go a bit fast on what we welcome, but also to underline maybe what we would like to see move still. First, of course, we strongly support maintaining the fossil fuel exclusions. Despite, we perfectly know that there is a lot of pressure and more and more pressure on this issue. But for us, entitling a sustainable investment product that is going into fossil fuel is a contradiction in terms. We also welcome the strengthening of the principal adverse impact indicators, especially the rule in relation to Article 7, 8, and 9 products. But I might have some remarks later on, but we do support the direction it's taking. And then we also very much support the deletion of the automatic safe harbors for products tracking. And we think it's important to ensure a more level playing field between passive and active managers, to avoid sustainability recognition without proper assessment of the products itself. Then maybe more on what we could still work on. First and foremost, maybe the structure of the commission proposal itself leaves too much discretion to financial market participants. And the categorization, sorry, of products remains reliant on criteria that remain extremely broad, that we would like to change because if we acknowledge the fact that the current SFDR framework has been vulnerable to greenwashing, then we cannot go towards a more flexible approach, but on the contrary towards enforceable criteria. We do have strong concerns about the very concept of article 8 products as light green products because, as I just said, we don't think it's greenwashing proof enough, and we are actually wondering what even light green does mean. So this is something that we would like to work further. Under principal adverse impacts, we still need, as I said, that it needs to be strengthened even further and to not repeat the mistakes of SFDR Level 1. The level 1 should provide clearer directions on the role of PAIs. They're relevant for product categorizations and the actions expected from financial market participants to remediate adverse impact. And then last remark, as I'm watching the time as well, we think the objective should not be limited to regulating the small green niche of the financial market, but that we do have a broader challenge to mainstreaming sustainability across all financial products and development practices to have a leveraged impact. And in that respect, we think that Article 6 still needs to be clarified and strengthened. And products that do not fall under the sustainability related categories should proceed to meaningful disclosures that allow comparability, not merely allowed to make vague positive claims. So in a nutshell, we do support the direction you're taking, and we want to keep on working.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “November 2025. The climate is changing rapidly. Forests are burning. We see more and more disasters affecting the most vulnerable members of our societies. Action to stop climate change has paused in November 2025. Another cop and Europe is standing back. Why is this? Because of national egotism? That applies to my own country, France, as well as the fact that the right have been working hand in hand with the far right to try to prevent efforts for us to bring climate change under control. So let me say this clearly in this House, when you give in to the wishes of major economic powers, we abandon European efforts to have a social model and environmental model. If we offer Donald Trump and Qatar the opportunity of backtracking on their businesses, climate obligations, or lulas pledges regarding Amazonian rainforest, you're not defending the climate. Nor indeed can you claim to be defending Europe. So they obey their orders. Meanwhile, Europe disappears. So either Europe becomes the driving force between a just transition or Europe will become a vassal for the climate, our economy, for our people. It's time for us to stand up straight. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Merci.”
  Climate efforts
• “Merci beaucoup. En francais. Thank you. I'm going to speak French. So thank you for coming and giving us this presentation. I'd also like to thank the commission for having started a deal. Having dealt with this issue, which affects our industry, I've got a couple of questions. Even if a lot of the questions have already been covered. But I've got a few additional points I'd like to raise. Now the first one. And that's what was the context for the study. Let me try and explain. What are the, um. What is the interest between the European Parliament and, uh, private industry? What are the. Could there be what who are the interests being served? Because taking into account the scope of the study, it would be interesting to hear something about the future studies and any possible conflicts of interest or not. Um, perhaps he will dispel all doubts of any conflicts of interest between Parliament and industry, but it would be interesting to be familiar with the rules concerning conflict of interest, that they have quite a broad scope and they affect, um, they can affect the confidence of people wishing to enter into contracts. And I think that it would be very interesting for people to have oversight and be reassured. Then there's another subject which you have just touched on now, and that concerns the that concerns legacy contaminants, because you've got industries which use PFAS and, um, I mean, they are toxic chemical products at the end of the day. But what about the actual production of PFAS? And how is this placed in the context of Competitivity? And what about the principle of the polluter pays? And if we talk about Competitivity and PFAS, even the title which has been given to the study, which was decided on by the coordinators, even if even with this, um, who is, uh, who bears the brunt, uh, who pays and is the principle of the polluter pays respected? And then the other, uh, the other thing and that concerns the title, and that's really up to the coordinators.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Commissioner. You talk. Well, commissioners, you're talking about a package to support chemicals. But what you're talking about is a permit to poison to the detriment of consumers, workers and our children. And you think that this is a plan for the industry? I'd call this a plan to increase cancer. You want to simplify rules, but what you're doing is opening the floodgate gate for carcinogenic substances in our toothpaste. Um, your weakening traceability of fertilizers, which are already in our soils and our waters. And then there's also labeling. There's two ways to declare war on women. One is to deny the deny the right to abort. And then there's a more pernicious way the products we use every single day, making them toxic to cause breast cancer. You've got substances in shampoo, in nail polish. In hair products. Products being used to make your skin lighter. You're making these decisions in the corridors. But at the same time, NGOs and civil society are not part of the debate. This package is just a text being imposed by the chemical lobbies, without the civil society or science being taken into account. We can't have simplification which threatens the health of our consumer, brings about pollution and calls into question Europe's fight against cancer.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you very much. I would like to begin by thanking the commission for the presentation given to us. I would regret, however, that the commissioner in charge of this is not actually here. Present with us today. You've recalled the incredible damage, the PFAS cycle. The way that it's responsible for, uh, illnesses that could be avoided and human lives are destroyed. And when faced with this urgency, we can't keep pushing back the decisions. The lobbies may be quite powerful, but we must make sure that those who are responsible for this contamination actually are held accountable. We must have a global plan, and that's what we are expecting for. For from you today. France recently adopted a a law to fight against this scourge, which requires supervision of all PFAS in all the water and forbidding their use in a certain number of daily use products, and setting in place the, uh, the principle that the polluter pays to make sure that they are responsible for the pollution that they carry out. And that's what we expect as well. According to the estimates from the from different lobbyist groups, it could be 100 million per year that would have to pay for, which is an incredible amount of the union budget without including the TFA, which are more difficult to deal with, as well as the health costs or the irreversible, irreversible damage to the ecosystem.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner. Thanks for joining us today. I have three questions. The first of these has already been touched on. It's got to do with this matter of short term rentals. As you are aware, there are a number of infringement proceedings that have been launched against the member states, including France. I come from France, as you do, and I think there are a few things that are a little bit strange. You talked about legal difficulties or hurdles where there are there are several of these. Firstly, I find it strange that we can't take action on short term rentals before next May. Or the fact that we're not allowed to ask information on companies who are not, which are not headquartered in the same country. I'm thinking of Airbnb. The headquarters is in Ireland, which has excellent tax conditions, if I may put it that way. And that does make things a little bit tricky and increases the kind of unfair competition we're seeing between member states and the impossibility of taking action to protect the rights of our citizens. So can you speak on that a little bit more in detail? Let me say, too, that the commission does have one thing it could do. It could give up on these preliminary infringement proceedings. So I'm turning to you on that before the changes to the law.”
  EU regulation of short-term rentals
• “The current crisis has made us face up once again to our responsibilities, and this time they are historic because as we have not turned our back on fossil fuels quickly enough, energy prices are rocketing and European citizens are suffering more than 60% increase in the cost of price. €2 at the pumps in France. This is unacceptable. This is the consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels. And this Uh, is the result of using fuels that are killing the environment. We are faced with a war. Once we have managed to sever ourselves from Putin's gas, we are now in the hands of Trump. Do you realize to what extent this situation is ridiculous? I have three requests for you. One, as several member states have already said, we, uh, want to, uh, cap fossil fuel prices and we want them to be banned entirely. We need to focus 100% on the energy transition. Secondly, citizens should not pay the price for mistakes made by the EU. We need to have a windfall tax on the excess profits made by the, uh, made by the energy companies. And then thirdly, we need the right to a social veto. No European decisions can be taken, which would worsen the living conditions of European citizens. Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. And I would very much like to thank the rapporteur for his proposal. Perhaps I can just start by setting out our group's position on the initial commission proposal. As the chair has rightly said, the European banks are doing pretty well. They're pretty solid, and the prudential rules that we've drawn up are contributing to our competitiveness. And I think we broadly agree on the need to have additional investment and to unlock that. We might not agree on what to invest on, but I think we all agree that there is a need to unblock more money to invest in Europe. This can be invested in Europe. Innovative start ups. But unfortunately, securitisation won't help us with this. And if you look at the proposal that we have here as part of the capital markets. Essentially we're looking at how we can mobilise money outside of the banking sector to finance the real economy. So that's not really what we're doing here, but we do need to work on this issue together. We have some concerns, especially when it comes to protecting ourselves against risk. And I'm thinking mainly about the housing sector here. These aren't really dealt with by the commission, and I think the risks are greater when you look at the proposal from the rapporteur. I'm just going to go quickly through three points here. First of all, on the issue of the SDS active pools and than being homogeneous, this was deemed to be homogenous because they have 70% of loans to SMEs. And we're looking here at bringing about simplification on that basis. But what the rapporteur is proposing here is to get rid of this specific provision, but also the technical standards for homogeneity. And this means that we, I think, need to work on this a little bit more, because the non-homogeneous pools will make securitization more complex, more risky, and also more difficult to supervise.”
  Financial regulation
• “Millions of Europeans can no longer live in decent housing. More than a million are out on the streets and living on the streets. We need decent housing and that's what the report should be about. But the right wants to roll out the red carpet to finance to the detriment of Europeans banking regulations. Uh, securitization. This is a recipe that will just bring us back to the 2008 housing crisis. We know what awaits us if we go down this path. Prices that shoot through the roof. Rents that will be even more expensive and a burden on households when it comes to the homelessness. The only proposal from the right is to criminalize them, and to ask Europol to provide files and to have records of them as if they were criminals. This is incomprehensible. I cannot believe you want to adopt a report that prefers a property rights to the right, to housing, evictions and so on, instead of tenants rights. There are more than 70 million Europeans that are going through a real nightmare. We need a genuine housing policy, so please vote against this report with us. Thank you.”
  EU housing policy
• “Our goal is to reconcile the economy with the planet. Here we're talking about competitiveness. But these words don't come from the Greens. They come from Mrs. von der Leyen. And today, Vice President, I must say that I'm a bit upset because often what is not said have a lot of meaning. And we have to look at this. There is a complete lack of reference to what is at stake when it comes to the climate. Vice president, your speech reveals one thing. The European Commission is about to change tack and backslide when it comes to the Green Deal. Now, the compass that compass that you're talking about will be an omnibus that will undo a valuable tool which ensures that there is transparency when it comes to how companies deal with the climate, humans and animals. If we listen to you. European competitiveness needs more free trade, and it also means that there has to be more competition. It means that the EU has to destroy its environmental and social safeguards in order to attract more capital, but at a price. The price of our sovereignty. So we have to call a spade a spade. We've got the US and China who want to do their business here with the rules that they've decided on, and they're going to take our money back home. We've got to resist Donald Trump and not give in to him. Mr.. You talked about the start up nation, but today you're saying that you've got a business plan for Europe. I'm not sure that this is the model we need. On the contrary, we need courage, lucidity and strong will in order to protect Europe, save the climate and protect our jobs.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Well, you have to understand what we're trying to do. We're losing time. We're missing time because. Each hour which passes, we have football fields of forest which are disappearing. And we have to prevent. We have to defend our planet. We've waited too long from the commission for these guidelines and this delegated text. The objectives and the implementing acts are actually threatening the survival of the forests. That is why we absolutely have to reject the objection. Colleagues. And just to be very direct. Has the Commission been transparent in its methodology? No. Is this a satisfactory list? The response is no. We have countries which have been affected by deforestation, whether it be illegal or not. Some of my colleagues have spoken about the confusion around that issue. But whatever happens, there should have been a proper delineation of the country at risk here and through the risk. With the new data that we have and we've received from the International Forestry Organisation. We can move forward and we can actually really get to grips with the struggle to protect the forest. I'm really tired of this hypocrisy on the part of some colleagues. The conclusion that they come to is that we should perhaps have a new category of negligible risk. This is all just a deceitful and is just not acceptable. So very clearly, we reject these objections and we ask the commission to implement. Thank you.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Toussaint is the next speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, energy prices are skyrocketing once again. And yet we know that one out of ten households find it difficult to heat up their homes. And that is why we're thrilled that we got this energy package for our citizens. Let us be crystal clear. As long as Europe depends on fossil fuel imports, then our bills will also hinge on autocrats and geopolitical crises. And it will be companies raking in the profits. We prefer renewable energy. We prefer to give the power to citizens. We prefer to invest in the European economy and local economy, and to invest in renewable cooperatives and to have a lower bills. That's what we prefer. Now, at the same time, the European Commission wants to invest billions of euro in gas and hydrogen and C, C s plants, and these projects aren't close to the citizen. They increase our dependence on foreign fossil fuels. So it's not coherent. There is no consistency. Please reject the PCI list that will be submitted to the vote in March. Thank you. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Chair: Hana, heading is next.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “The second issue is the is doing away with the guarantees in SDS. Our group is very much against having insurance and reinsurance firms here, having a non finance guarantees for SDS. And that's what we have in the current Commission proposal. The European Systemic Risk Committee warned about this um step that um it talked about the risk of a concentration and that would undermine financial stability. 40 4142 and these provisions seem a little bit contradictory. So in our work, I'm sure we will have the opportunity to come back to these, to go through them and perhaps a change tack. Third and final point capital requirements and the watering down of certain thresholds. Yes, we have those that say that we need to look at the prudential framework. I come back to what I said at the outset, especially, um, the, um, risk weighting and also the underlying risks. And this contributes to using securitization to increase the, the ratios for um, capital requirements rather than financing the real economy. And that is the framework that we need to be working on together at present. And the rapporteur goes even further by saying that preferential treatment that the Commission is proposing to grant to resilient, uh, securities. Mr. Bowie has mentioned this. They want to broaden this to all Securitization. And we think that that exposes us to an awful lot of risk. And it also could perhaps run counter to the own resources regulations that we have. So we will be tabling amendments, and we hope that we'll be able to work constructively together. Thank you.”
  Financial regulation
• “The European Commission is now using the European Semester as its sole tool for guiding the member states. To push them towards more competitiveness rather than improving the lives of European citizens. But we need to understand that the objectives are not incompatible. We should have a key objective at the heart of this measure, making sure that we're not depleting the Earth's resources beyond the natural ceiling that exists and have resources, new own resources. Madam Commissioner, we should have measures to fight poverty in the European Union. Will the Commission be asking Member States to ensure that their budgets do not contribute to further precarious living conditions and inequalities because no budgetary policy should be adopted if it makes it harder for European citizens. If the climate regulation and moving beyond the limits of the planet's resources should be a guiding principle for our budgetary decision and ensure that we make our investments accordingly, because otherwise we will be having a budget that pays no real attention to the real constraints.”
  European Semester (social dimension)
• “Colleagues, here we are, one year after the Draghi report. It was a warmly welcomed a year ago. But where are we today? Where are the investments that were promised to bring about the necessary decarbonization and ecological transition? Where are the billions that were needed to preserve jobs in Europe and help us in areas with difficulties? Let's look at the reality. European companies are closing. People who want to continue to build, make green steel are have seen investment disappear because Europe was not able to protect them. Whereas with the silicone, a company has closed its doors once again. We are more and more dependent on China because we don't have enough investment. Beyond the austerity that the stability Pact imposes on member states, the European Commission has done little to nothing to bring about the public investment that will draw in private investment. This position by the European Commission is one that we need to take up. We need to say that the European economy is fragile, faced with climate change. We need private but mostly public investment. Thank you.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Thank you. I was hesitating as to whether I should do this in French or English, but my colleague just spoke French, so I will too. Thank you very much for this discussion, which is crucial. I wanted to emphasize the fact that we've. We were working on this under the last mandate, and this was taken into account in this list and in the proposal on the green package. And I wanted to highlight the fact that we pushed for electrification. But when you come and say 50% electrification projects, we counted 45%. So it's a bit better than we were thinking of, so much the better. But it's still only 50% electrification projects, so there's 50% of other projects. And I need to focus to emphasize this. This is a result of the decisions taken under the old mandate, but it's a bit vague as to where the hydrogen actually comes from. Now you are stating and it's only I mean, it's your job that there is full transparency on the selection of projects. And if there is a new proposal on the green package, it's because there have been, as there's been a certain amount of vagueness, particularly as far as the origin and composition of hydrogen is concerned. It's not mentioned. So that may mean that energy will be continue to be stuck with fossil fuels, which is not a good thing for sovereignty, for climate or for price affordability, because, uh, the renewables and electric, uh, electricity are cheapest and, uh, there's, there's the two fossil fuel projects as well, eastward, for example, which have been an exception, uh, compared to the rules which apply to all the other projects.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “I've heard my colleagues speak about costs for the industry, but let's talk about the cost for our citizens more. €440 per household just to have access to drinkable water when the benefits are private. Well, the damages are being shared publicly. So my question to the representative of the commission would I have three, three questions. First of all, the commission has promised to go more quickly in for forbidding certain products. You haven't talked to us about that. What are you going to do to go even more quickly? Also, what is foreseen to try to forbid not only their use in consumption, but also on industrial level? Second question PFAS are everywhere, in particular in the water. Are you planning on working on detecting all PFAS for especially TFR in all European waters? And I would finish by saying, because the working class are the people who are most polluted when the European industry is already suffering from unemployment, as we can see in France as well. Are you going to be imposing on a European scale systematic detection of workers exposure to these poisons? Thank you.”
  PFAs
• “Sir. Commissioner. Francois. Francois was 23 years old. Francois. Ah! Ah ah ah! As someone who died in the Paris region. And apparently this was in Paris. Apparently Paris is not going to be affected by adverse climate events. Now, we could express our solidarity. We could have a minute's silence. But this idea of a climate emergency is just an abstract idea. We're seeing homes being destroyed, seeing how houses are disappearing. And the scientists have said once again, we need to reduce by 90% our greenhouse gases by 2040. That's absolutely vital. But Europe is late. We still haven't set our 2035 target or 2040 target. It's Emmanuel Macron. You are the main reason for this European sabotage of the climate policy. But it's the Paris Agreement we're talking about here. Do not kill the Paris Agreement. Allow the EU to move forward.”
  Climate efforts
• “Commissioner. You've come to present an action plan for fertilisers today. Prices are exploding. But behind the question of cost. We have a brutal reality. We've let poison into our food. And that's cadmium. It comes from fertilizers. So it's filtered through and finds its way into our cereals and our potatoes and our bread. Contamination in France has almost doubled in the last ten years. Adults are exposed. Children are exposed. In 2019, Europe decided to reduce use of these toxic substances. But with so many derogations, it is still possible to decide freely to import fertilisers full of cadmium anywhere from anywhere. So we have to wait 12 years before we get rid of them in France. What are we going to do? Your action plan, Commissioner, has to be more than just reducing prices for chemical fertilisers. It has to be a plan for public health, protection of soil, protection of our children. So let us wait for more lives to be ruined. Let's take action now.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. I think you're pointing up the fact that we need housing not only for the most insecure among us, but also for a growing part of the population, including the middle class who are also struggling to pay their bills or who are struggling to get on the housing ladder. And you're right. But at the same time, I would emphasize that there is an absolute need to channel public investment and also state aid. To this end, we're looking at a reform of state aid and services of general interest. We need to ensure that the funds are focused on those who are most in need, because otherwise the risk is that we see a deepening crisis. We've seen the explosion of housing crisis in Spain in 2007 to 8, and we have an absorption of public money by the higher classes in society. But I know that we can work on this together. On the plan and poverty.”
  EU housing policy
• “I'm going to speak French. Mr. Lesar, thank you very much for your statement. We've been listening to the colleagues from the EPP, and they explained to us that they're ready to work with all of the different pro-democratic groups within the European Parliament. And yet the EP hasn't responded to the appeal. When it was a question of sitting down together to look at what could be done to simplify, to simplify company's burden and maintaining high ambitions. We've said from colleagues from the left and from the centre that we wanted to ask the EP what you plan on doing on this text. And so I ask you once again, do you plan on having a discussion with the pro-Democratic groups, or do you plan to support the amendments coming from the far right? Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Mr. Falcone. Thank you for accepting my question. This forms part of democratic debate. You belong to a political group that presented a program for housing called build, build, build. So I wanted to ask you a question. There are some people who think that the earth is flat, and there are those who think that land is infinite. When you say build, build, build, you're not taking into account the fact that a large part of our European territory is already urbanized. Um, some is not usable. Uh, some land is polluted. And if we just spread out urban sprawl further and further, people are going to be further and further from where they work, and they will have to cover more and more kilometers in order to get to work every day. So my question is, are you sure that you want to build, build, build? Do you not think there should be some limits?”
  EU policy on urban development
• “This morning to talk about the European single market and its contribution to our shared prosperity. Now Leta and Draghi felt that the single market was our trump card in a chaotic world as long as we had a robust social and environmental model but what has become of those crucial concerns? Europe doesn't need more deregulation. It can only survive if our single market is such that it does not drive us all in a race to the bottom. We have a ban on member states going further when it comes to reining in polluting industries and digital platforms. We will have a twenty-eighth regime which will be there to drive down our hard won social rights but we need to be harmonizing our laws on pesticides, the taxation of the rich and harmful environmental practice. Let's take the best of Europe to build our shared future. Our real compass should be an assertion that Europe's strength resides in its capacity to protect human beings and their health and all living creatures.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Colleagues, Miss Carlsberg, you say you don't understand why some are opposed to this Mercosur deal, but you obviously support it. And yet, signing this deal with Mercosur and implementing it is tantamount to saying to farmers who are suffering, who are dying out, who get very little profit. So we're now going to get them to face even stiffer competition in sensitive sectors. What about parents whose children suffer from cancer because they've been exposed to exposed to toxic products, isn't it going to be even worse? A question please ask for the chair. Aren't you saying to European farmers that heavy melee is doing the right thing, this chainsaw set of policies, do you think that Argentina is a reliable partner? That's why we're against this. And why aren't you?”
  Trade relations with Mercosur