Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
ITRE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsEkaterina Zaharieva
Thank you. Thank you, dear madam Maido, Skopayeva, dear Eva, honorable members. It is a pleasure to participate in this second structured dialogue. At my confirmation hearing, I presented a plan to build a strong research and innovation union around five priorities. I would like to update you on how we are turning that vision into reality for our researchers and innovators.
First, strengthening our European research area. Two weeks ago in Strasbourg, I presented the direction of work for the European Research Area Act we will present in autumn. I took note of the parliament's resolution, to which we will reply in the coming weeks. It is clear that we share a high level of ambition. Our objective will be to make the fifth freedom a reality by addressing fragmentation.
The ERA Act will place people and values at its core. It will address research careers, including a possible European model research contract. We will enshrine scientific freedom into law in line with the parliament's long-standing requests. The act will also better integrate research in economic coordination to support member states' reforms and investments, and push us closer to the 3% target. Expectations of our community are high.
Our call for evidence received 735 replies, and we cannot disappoint them. But developing the European Research Area goes far beyond the ERA Act. Last year, we adopted the ERA policy agenda '25-'27, engaging all R and I actors in developing policies at national and local level, and we launched the Choose Europe initiative. The original package of €500,000,000 that present von der Leyen announced has already been expanded to 900,000,000. No new applications to our latest European Research Council call for advanced researchers have doubled.
And today, there are 101 national original funding and support schemes designed to attract, retain, and develop research talent. Together, they represent at least €1,000,000,000 in funding opportunities. Second, breakthrough innovation. Last week, less than a year after Europe's first startup and scale-up strategy, we presented an ambitious package. At the center, the EU Inc.
Regulation. It will allow founders to build European companies that remain European. A founder will be able to register once within 48 hours and for under €100, with immediate access to capital and clients across 27 member states. And let me thank the many members, as Eva said in her introduction, in this house and many, also people who are outside this room who advocated for this idea, born from our start-up community and that will now benefit every company type, in particular also the rapporteur Rapazzi for his work on the report adopted in January. Meanwhile, our recommendation for a common definition of innovative enterprises, startups, and scale-ups will improve the targeting of EU and national support.
Third, boosting Europe's strategic tech capacity. We are moving swiftly to launch the Scale Up Euro fund by June. With the initial 5,000,000,000 firepower, it will become Europe's largest late-stage equity fund capable of investing hundreds of millions into single companies, because this is the scale we need to grow global big tech champions. It will be market-based, privately managed, and co-financed by some of Europe's largest corporates as funding investors. We are also working to direct more institutional investment into European strategic technologies.
Boosting strategic technologies also means turning today's geopolitical reality into an opportunity for Europe. This is why we proposed opening the ESC and the Next Horizon Europe program to dual use. Duo is do dual investment in competitiveness and security that Europe cannot afford to miss. In parallel, we are implementing sectoral strategies in life sciences, AI in science, and nuclear. Just this month, we set out a plan for small modular reactors with the Euratom program playing a central role.
Empowerment support for a strong future budget will be essential. Fourth, inclusion. Earlier this month, the new gender equality strategy announced the four forthcoming action plans for women in research, innovation, and start ups. Our consultation received nearly 300 contributions. It highlighted persistent challenges from work-life balance to underrepresentation, discrimination, and even violence against women.
I am personally committed to translating this feedback into concrete actions for those who need it most. Finally, on the Next Horizon Europe program, we had an exchange on our proposal in October. And I would like to thank you, in particular, rapporteur Mister Ehler, for the work done so far and especially for defending an ambitious program and budget. Tomorrow, we will have an in-depth discussion in the presence of Director General Lemaitre. Let me simply underline that we share the same objective, ensuring that European research and innovation continue delivering excellence, impact, and competitiveness.
There are legitimate concerns, and we stand ready to help find practical solutions. But we must now move forward with a constructive and pragmatic approach, when simplification is our guiding principle. Before concluding, I would like to mention some key progress we made internationally. Switzerland is now associated. We concluded negotiations with Japan.
Here in my speech, actually, that we just started exploratory talks with India, but actually we started and finished exploratory talks with India on Friday. And now we are ready to start negotiations with India, and we are negotiating a science and technology agreement with Nigeria. Our support for Ukrainian research and innovation remains steadfast. Europe must remain a global magnet for cooperation, even in times of tension. This is at the heart of our council recommendation on science diplomacy we proposed last month.
Honorable members, last year, we moved quickly to deliver on the president's commitment to put research and innovation at the heart of our economy. I count on your continued support to make our research innovation union the best place to invent, invest, start, and scale. Thank you, and I look forward to our discussions. Thank you very much, commissioner. Thank you for setting the scene.
Eva Maydell
Thank you for those concrete and very concise, in the same time, remarks. We will proceed now with exchanges of views with the coordinators and the group representatives. So I would like to first give the floor to the EPP, Mr. Christian Eller. Please.
Christian Ehler
Thank you very much. Two powerful Bulgarian ladies are joining us. Couldn't be better. And I understood the rules that the coordinator is not present, yield that to the coordinator present, perhaps. So I want to discuss three points for the date.
First of all, congratulations to the '28 regime. I think.
That will be an ongoing discussion.
And I would really like to highlight your role and how much we welcome that. I would like to discuss three points with you today. One, how the commission is allocating the final financial contributions of associated countries, the role of the parliament in the implementation of association agreements, and the self-standing regulation for the freedom of scientific research. Let me start with this issue related to the associations. And I want to highlight that these are not random topics.
These are two issues on which the commission pleaded with the co-legislators to have more flexibility in the legal text, and I specifically referred to the old commission, not you, commissioner. The parliament granted that based on the shared understanding that the intention of that flexibility and that the commission would stick to the spirit of the agreement. On these two issues, our inter-institutional collegiality resulted in the commission overstepping the spirit of this agreement. Given that we are in the midst of the new round of negotiations, I just want to remind us of these experiences so that we can appropriately reflect this in the negotiations. The first topic I would like to address is the reported use of funds from associated countries to fund the biodiversity call, despite the regulation's requirement to distribute the contributions of associated countries over the program parts proportional to the participation of the country in each part of the program.
Article 16, Paragraph 5 of the Horizon Regulation includes the requirement that the allocation of the financial contributions shall take into account the level of participation of the legal entities of the associated countries in each part of the program. As reported by Science Business, the commission is planning a large horizontal call on biodiversity in order to increase the biodiversity spending under the framework program. So I would like to know a little bit what we talk about. The second question is as.
Eva Maydell
I would have to ask you to ask the second question as a follow-up, if possible, because we got a message also from the interpreters to slow down. So maybe we give the opportunity for a response, and then back to you, mister Heather.
Fine. Thank you.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Heather. Now I'll try to, I didn't hear the questions, concrete questions for your two remaining topics that you wanted to discuss. I'll try to, maybe to touch them as well. First, on the distribution of contribution of associated countries.
You rightly pointed, the regulation that it has to be distributed according to their participation in different part of the program. In and it has to be during the whole period of association. That's completely true. The problem that we face in the commission is that the real distribution comes not year by year but a bit later. So at the end of their association participation, they have to be equal, I mean, distribution according to their participation.
But the truth is that it's not possible to do it year by year because, as I said, the data will be known, maybe, at the next year. So this is how we actually we're doing, and we balance, at the end of their participation. So but, yeah, it's, this is what the regulation is saying. And, of course, as I said, we're going to implement the regulation when we have the concrete data. And you also, I think, discuss also, I think I have more time maybe to be able to address the one of the remaining questions.
So do I have? On the separate act or not in the scientific freedom, I think it's really important we discuss it during our coordinators meeting that I held regularly in Strasbourg. And, we believe that it should be part of the European research area proposal. Different reason, but the first and the main is that scientific research, it's freedom. It's not a stand alone policy area, but it's a fundamental condition for the functioning of the European research area.
It's really fundamental for the functioning of the European research area. And integration, we will therefore ensure coherence, legal quality, and enforceability while avoiding fragmentation of legislation.
Eva Maydell
Thank you. I'm gonna give a bit of leeway to the first round of speakers as the commissioner was very concise in the beginning and just took six minutes. So, mister Eller, back to you for continuing your question.
Christian Ehler
My question, my second question would be, on the association agreement. We have an ongoing interinstitutional dispute. The president had been writing to the commission and the council. So how do you see the future interpretation of that? Because for the time being, if we agree once for an agreement, it's practically for eternity, which is unacceptable because we bind the next generation of parliamentarians.
So my question would be, how do you foresee, for the next time, in the regulation how we handle the association agreements?
Ekaterina Zaharieva
Thank you, Mr. Lederer, for this question. I think it was one of the main questions that I received during my confirmation hearing from different groups. I remember the time that we were about to negotiate the new institutional agreement or the amendment of the interinstitutional agreement, and I was answering that I was hoping that we are going to find a solution there and, of course, according to the treaties. So we didn't change how it works before that, with the amendments. I know that the parliament, long years requested for more active participation in the role.
On this, what I will answer again, we are I'm engaged, really, to provide you with as much as possible information. This is how the system works now, but I'm really open to engage. That's why you saw that in my speech. I touch particularly also international relationship, and I inform you about the export talks with India. So I believe that we should find a way to find a solution of this open dispute.
I believe, continues since, I don't know how many years, but maybe more than the previous mandate even, and to work in close cooperation with you according to the treaties.
Eva Maydell
Thank you, commissioner. We move forward with the speaker's list. From the SND, we have Miss Lina Galavez, but she will join us at the end of this exchange. So she will come after the ESN speaker. This is why I move to the PFE, Miss Julie Rechagnon.
Julie Rechagneux
you. In Europe, we produce innovation, but we're struggling to become a true economic power. We've seen progress in investment, but growth isn't sufficient. Private investment is too limited.
Or just the headset? Okay.
Private.
Julie Rechagneux
Investment is too limited, and the European framework continues to slow down innovation and research. The latest EIB report goes in this direction.
Follow-up. Thank you.
Julie Rechagneux
Europe, we produce a lot of innovation, but we're struggling to become a true economic power. We're seeing progress when it comes to investment, but growth overall is limited. The European Investment Bank's latest reports point to persistent difficulties when it comes to turning research results into economic benefits. So we're wondering about how we can be more efficient. Could you explain the latest innovation report?
We're wondering about the policy as a whole. We have a number of concerns regarding certain reforms, especially when it comes to financial integration and skirting around national frameworks using the 28th regime, for example. These approaches jeopardize the existing framework and could fragile the balance between institutions. This is especially true for startup innovation, which depends on the member states. European intervention could be counterproductive in this area.
My second question is the Innovation Act needs to respect sovereignty. How will you create a beneficial environment for innovation without encroaching on national competency?
Ekaterina Zaharieva
It's good that my colleague make a translation to me. If I correct, understood why the innovation act was postponed and, more or less, you are asking what will be the scope? Is it going to be helpful or the opposite? This was the question, because it was a bit different. Yeah.
Okay. Yeah. Interpretation. First of all, thank you for this question. Because why was it really postponed?
Yes. It was announced to be adopted together with the twenty-eighth regime and recommendations for the definitions of innovative companies and innovative startups and scale-ups. But we decided to postpone it because we want to get it right, in a nutshell. Additional work is needed to further strengthen its substance and coherence with the other proposals. We wanted to tackle the market demand with the European Innovation Act, so-called precommercial public procurement.
But you know that, in autumn, there will come a revision of the public procurement, directives and legislation. So we want to have coherence with the, for the coming commission proposals. I believe that this coordination of the polity is also helpful. Because when I meet innovative companies, the main request that they have from us is please tackle fragmentation. And this is actually what the twenty-eighth regime is doing.
It's try to facilitate access to the market to not only innovative companies that it was announced because the 28th regime is actually open for all, for future founders, access to the market. And this will actually support and facilitate access to capital if they have faster and cheaper access to the market.
Eva Maydell
Thank you. Would you have a follow-up, Miss Rechagnon? Thirty seconds for a follow-up. No. It's fine.
Thanks. Thank you very much. We move to the next speaker from the ECR, Miss Elena Donozan. Prego.
Elena Donazzan
Thank you for your present. Thank.
You, commissioner. It's always a pleasure to see you. There are many issues, and these are rather important, tricky times. All of the funds and some of the programs with the funds and programs that Europe thought it could make the difference. There are three issues I'd like to raise.
Firstly, the use of research funds. I'm rapporteur on the Space Act. And if we could use this by overcoming the issue of dual use, it's difficult to say that there's a clear distinction between civil and military use. All of this, I think, means that the European research space could be an area to really use all of our possibilities and enhance security in Europe as well. Secondly, energy.
Energy is a very fragmented market in Europe. It's one of the main issues for this commission. Now I think we have to start thinking across all the funds of research in terms of technological neutrality, because pulling in one single direction, investing in one direction investment is wrong. Europe is investing a lot in the health sector, in biotechnology in particular, linked to the elderly and biomechanics. But I think that we should look at a flagship project on early life, because we have to renew our ability to generate in Europe.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, dear Elena. Always a pleasure to meet you as well. And it's a proposal.
I remember that, though use was very politically sensitive, before my confirmation hearing. And with the geopolitical development in the world, it became, of course, a different opinion, yet. But I think that more and more, we align with the fact that we should use all the possibilities and all the funds that we have to strengthen European competitiveness and European security, that we should rely on ourselves for our security. And we believe in the commission, and that's why this is a proposal. We call it mini omnibus for defense to open, part of Horizon, accelerator, but also step both for project and companies for dual use and defense.
And this is a possibility for us to test stocks, actually how it's going to work for the next MFF because we did propose to open Horizon Europe and competitiveness fund for dual-use technologies. And I also, in discussions in the castle there, of course, the debates around the novelties that we present in the program, one is dual use. What is important, it's this possibility not to increase the administrative burdens for our app applicants to put extra requirements on the security. So it's good that we have the possibility. I'm very grateful to discuss the support on the mini omnibus.
Eva Maydell
Thank you for respecting the time. Do you have a follow-up? No. Thank you very much. We move to renew Mr. Joao.
João Cotrim De Figueiredo
Thank you, madam Chair, madam Commissioner Zaraeva. Let me start by saying that I really appreciate your efforts and recognize your efforts within your scope of research, innovation, and startups to get Europe to have more companies, better companies, and more jobs and better jobs, and most of all that they stay in Europe as they scale up and grow. But, the truth is that the amount of direct investment that the EU injects into the economy is insufficient to do this. The European Investment Council will be endowed with perhaps €4,000,000,000 over several years, perhaps €1,000,000,000 a year. Even what we know about the European Competitiveness Fund is not very different from this.
Overall, this will represent 2 or 3% of the annual savings of all Europeans, throughout Europe. So we need something to mobilize these savings, and that should be the savings and investment union that we keep talking about. But even that will not be enough to finance companies as they scale up. Perhaps up to Series B, it will be okay. Series C capital rounds, series D capital rounds are already out of the question.
So for later rounds and for possible exits of our IPOs, we need a capital markets union. We've been talking about this for years, and it's still not there. Otherwise, the companies will leave Europe at a later stage, perhaps, but it'll still leave Europe. So in this short time, I've mentioned the European Innovation Council Fund, the European Competitiveness Fund, the Savings Investment Union, and Capital Markets Union, and I could have talked about the role of the European Investment Bank. So all these things, they are being managed by different commissioners, by different DGs.
My question is without coordination of the depth of the criteria and the timing, this will not work. And what we'll be doing is financing companies for them to leave Europe later. My question is then, very simply, how are we going to coordinate this between the different commissioners? Thank you.
Thank you, commissioner.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
Thank you, Kotrim. Joao, always a pleasure to discuss with you. You have such deep knowledge in the markets and what actually all innovators need. I'm absolutely aligned with your intervention. We know that it's not enough, but public money will never be enough.
We discussed this many times. European Innovation Council Fund is the biggest deep tech fund, but it's still, I mean, it's not enough. It's, it will be around 5,000,000,000 because the whole pure three of Horizon Europe is €10,000,000,000 for seven years. You're absolutely right. Scale of pure fund, you didn't mention it, and that's why we were looking at how to motivate private sector to invest in deep tech scale ups.
And we start working. Eva knows that they have work also in this house, and maybe some of you as well. This happens. We are close to launch it. Together with the public money, 1,000,000,000 from third view of Horizon with $4.04 billion from the private big corporations, but it will be 5,000,000,000.
It, yeah. It can leverage 20,000,000,000, but it's still not enough. You rightly said it's the capital market union. It's deepening of the single market, and you rightly said that we talk since years. I really believe that it's time for declaration to actions.
Commission has several proposals on the table for saving case investment union, for deepening the single market, and I really hope for smooth adoption. Because without this, no matter what kind of instruments, how we coordinate, it would never be enough. It is still a public fund, except the scale of pure fund, which is also a combination with the private sector. So how do we coordinate? We coordinate quite well.
We have a prog project groups, for example, in '28 regime and the Innovation Act. And, so we're discussing this project group. And, of course, it's a commission. It's not like we don't want and we are not working in silence. We are not separate bodies, the commissioners and the DGs.
We are one commission.
João Cotrim De Figueiredo
Yes. Thank you very much for the answer, madam commissioner. A follow-up on a slightly different topic. Are you worried about the delays in the conversion of the European Startup Nations Alliance into a European digital infrastructure consortium that should have happened six months ago and still hasn't been applied to? Do we need ESNA to become a consortium for it to enjoy all the benefits from European funding?
And is your office doing enough to accelerate this?
Ekaterina Zaharieva
Maybe you're asking for a concrete project. We can send you a written reply. My colleague knows the details, but my team, they are.
That's quite enough. Thank you very much.
I'll send you a written.
Damian Boeselager
Commissioner, I just wanted to thank you for pushing the EU. Proposed forward. I think there was a lot of relief in a lot of the initiators of this project and the startup scene in general that there was a regulation coming forward, and you promised this in this committee. So I want to thank you for delivering on that. I think the proposal has some very good elements.
For example, the idea that you can basically, you know, found a company in 48 hours with, you know, a very limited amount of money and digitally completely. And, the idea that Aesop's will be taxed only at the end and not throughout the process. So there's some really good stuff in there. But there are a couple of question marks. And the first one would be, why did you decide not to go for a court system that is more unified?
I think that was a big question mark. Why did you allow, for notary, signing and requirements, through the backdoor with an exemption, for, you know, very specific cases? And, maybe also, why didn't you put any labor law conditions, at least on a limited basis, in there that would allow people to cross country, cross member states hiring? I think this would be my main question. Thank you.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
Thank you. Thank you also for your commitment to the twenty-eighth regime and EU Inc. As I said in the beginning, I don't know. Were you here? I think this was possible because it was a truly bottom-up initiative, was supported very strongly from this house, but also from our startup community.
And, of course, we were working very hard in the commission this to happens. About the court, we discussed it, very long course with the community. I know that the strong, the one of the strongest assets of the Delaware regime is the fast court procedure for dispute solving. We have limits in the treaties. We it's not possible to say it to do it with the regulation, even with the nominee.
What we do, it's also in your report, in the new resolution, we motivate, and we are ready to provide member states with the support to have a specialized course or chambers, most probably chambers in their courts, who are going to specialize in dispute solving for EU ink companies. This is what we can do with the restrictions of the treaties. And I believe that such kind of expertise will really help to improve the time, the speed, the cost of dispute solving of EU Inc. About the labour laws. In the communication, we have a couple of coming initiatives because the 28th regime is a bit broader than you, Inc.
It's not only the corporate law, the regulation that we did adopt, and all the recommendations of definitions, but it's also coming initiatives. And some of them are linked with also cross-border teleworking, which, you know, our innovative companies very much need. So at the same time, there were a lot of requests to the commission, and I'm pretty much sure for you, 28 regime or the EU Inc. Not to be used to bypass national legislation linked with the right of our employees. So it will be implemented a national legislation of the company when it's incorporated, but it gives absolute freedom to founders to incorporate in which member state they want.
Damian Boeselager
Yes. Maybe on the, maybe on this point of what's supposed to come. I heard a colleague already asked about the Innovation Act. But what do you think will be the links to the EU Inc. In the coming files, be it on labor law or the Innovation Act.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
The labor law, I think, is planned by the end of the year. It's not exactly labor law. There are a couple of directives which are linked with the cross border teleworking. You know, now it's allowed, up to 25%. So they are, of course, the commissioner who is leading is my colleague, EVP Minzato.
She's also a part of our project group for startups and innovation, and they are working on that by the end of the year. On the European Innovation Act and demand part, precommercial public procurement, I remember I think you even asked me, during my hearing, am I in favor of setting targets for innovative procurement in the legislation? So we are discussing this and reflecting this. I believe that we should start procuring from our innovators. I really believe in this.
I believe that the public procurement, innovative public procurement in the European Union, are quite low. Precommercial public procurement in European Union is below 1% of all public procurement that we do. And now our competitors in United States is 7%, and we are below one. Oh, sorry. I think I'm too long. Oh, no.
I still have time.
Eva Maydell
Well, Damian was 50 seconds short, so you can use his 50 seconds to respond to his question.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
So we are working to improve the Innovation Act. And when we are ready with the timeline, we are going, of course, to announce it. But what is important is to do it right?
Rudi Kennes
Yes. Thank you, chairman. I will speak Dutch.
Madam Commissioner, I would like to make a structural comment. Four commissioners are involved in this commission's proposal. But despite the major consequences of all of this, and this is the first time in this commission basically, decisions that have consequences on working conditions are being presented as issues related to competition as if they had no effect on labor relations. But the Draghi report states very clearly that start-ups have to be borne in mind in terms of financing. But your proposal is saying nothing about how to overcome the various obstacles.
And basically, we shouldn't water down controls, but the free choice of headquarters isn't a problem. That provision does not overcome any of the obstacles to growth, social dumping, and this type of thing. So the commission has made a proposal for all companies, but the original one only talked about innovative ones. The commission opened a proposal with open arms, but without doing anything to counteract social dumping and fictitious companies. Now obviously, we have to invest in a working environment which protects workers.
And creative, innovative companies in Europe have strong rights in terms of worker protection. And we need to work on that front, rather than deregulation. Thank you.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
Thank you for your question. It was a question that was asked also during our readout and presentation of the act. I'm going to repeat. First, EU Inc. Regulation fully maintains workers' rights.
As I did answer to the previous question, it doesn't touch the workers' right regulation and any regulation. It is a proposal to streamline company law, and it does not affect labor taxation or other laws. It try only to harmonize the timing of employee stock option taxation. To be fair, to be taxed when you actually receive income, not in advance when you receive the shares, when you sell these shares. This is the only part of the taxation laws.
Jung focuses on how companies are set up and managed from registration to corporate governance, share structure, digital company procedures, and so on and so forth. Rules protecting workers continue to fully apply in the member states where the work is performed. This is something that is written also in the communication, but I think also in the regulation itself. This includes wages, working time, health, safety, equal opportunities for women and men, protection against discrimination, and so on and so forth, including, I think, 13 of the member states have this in their legislation, the right of the representative of the workers to be represented in corporate governance depends on the structure, so to say. So, it's a codetermination, is the terminology, including this.
So it's nothing that weakens, actually, the employees or workers' rights in the EU Inc.
Eva Maydell
Would you have a follow-up? Thank you. We move to the representative of the ESN. I've not been given a speaker, and I don't see anyone asking for the floor. Therefore, we will conclude with Miss Lina Galves, the representative from the S and D, who's slightly behind schedule.
Lina, over to you. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you very much, chair, and thank you very much for giving me the possibility to speak a bit later. Welcome, commissioner Saharieva, and thank you very much for being here each time. We ask you for because the world is moving very, very fast in technological and geopolitical terms, we really need to be at the same path. And in that respect, if Europe wants to remain leader in R and I, we obviously need to put forward a profound reform of our research and innovation ecosystem. Obviously, by looking to the FP10, but I will not ask for it because tomorrow, we will be presenting the draft.
But it is obvious that we must bridge the valley of death and ensure our breakthrough research translates into industrial leadership. However, research and innovation cannot thrive in isolation. You know that very well. And for that, probably, we must finally complete the single market for research by deepening the European Research Area. We can no longer afford to postpone the completion of EDA.
And in this contest, obviously, the hema factor is paramount. We have been discussing the statute for researchers to tackle precariousness and ensure brain circulation, rather than brain drain. You know that this is very important for me also, as it is the right to stay as it is established in the later report. So commissioner, the European Talent Pool is our greatest asset. We know that.
But we are losing them to other continents. We are still not unlocking the full potential of women in research and innovation. My question is specific, and it's not about women this time, that is normally the case. How do you plan to make the study for researchers a reality? Can we expect a concrete legislative proposal to provide our researchers with the stability and cross-border mobility they deserve?
Thank you.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
Thank you, Lina, for your dedication in fight for equal rights of women and girls in science and research. I think it's a really important topic, especially because the data didn't change positively last decade, and we needed even stronger voices now when actually this, right, is questioned, unfortunately, in this geopolitical situation. But I think your question is really important. In my introduction, I said that we received more than 300 replies on I don't know. Seven hundred thirty five contributions for our public consultation, which is one of the biggest number, actually.
This shows how big the expectation of our scientists is. And, actually, two or three days ago, I was this science is wonderful initiative, which we are really proud to organize for now only in Brussels and to other cities. We think that we should facilitate organization in every member state. And I met the young researchers from Maria Skłodowska-Curie. Some of them also, are ERC beneficiaries.
And all of them were sharing with me their personal stories about how difficult it is to move from between academia and private sector, but also between different member states and how valuable for them will be to have some at least minimum standard and facilitate this circulation, as you call it rightly, not drain of them. So it's not easy. It will be one of the most difficult logistic effects because on one hand, we have a very strong autonomy of universities, which we should respect, and I'm really much keen to respect. On the other hand, we have very strong national companies, but at the same time, also, we want to harmonize and make this fifth freedom reality. So there are different proposals.
One of it is to have a minimum standard contract at European level, which will be optional, for the research organizations, universities, but maybe possibly the private sector as well, to opt in this minimum standard contract. I think it's very important also, to advance with this recognition of qualification and diplomas, which is also a big, big issue for most of our, not only researchers and scientists, but in the circulation of knowledge. There were also a good ideas how to support this actual circulation between the private sector and academia, and I'm really much keen to look at the programs and the instruments that we have, how to support it, how to support also the private sector to provide quality jobs for our researchers and to keep them here, in Europe. Sorry. I'm here, but we can discuss further this week.
We do have a follow-up.
Lina Gálvez
Yeah. Very shortly. Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you very much for your interest on this. These ideas are very interesting.
This may have a standard contract or the recognition of the qualifications and also this, the circulation. But I would like to push a bit further on this because so far, it has been of a voluntary nature. And are you ready or you will be ready to move towards recommendation? I know you mentioned the autonomy of universities that, of course, we really need to recognize and it is important. But probably unless we do another step forward, it will be really difficult to break out that, you know, this diversity.
And another, I can one day share with you that it is very difficult also to go back to your country of origin when you have done all your research career and early professional career as a researcher outside your own country. It's very difficult to go back to some countries. So this is something we probably really need to look at. Thank you.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
This was exactly what you said at the end was shared by one of the participants in this meeting. I'm not going to mention the member state in which he said it's very difficult to come back in his university. But the truth is, yeah, these are the questions that scientists permanently raise to me when I mean, and with the actually, the European Research Area Act, we will go one step further than just soft measures and coordination. This is the goal, to go one step further.
Eva Maydell
Thank you, commissioner. Thank you to all the speakers from the first round. Now we move to the second round, where we have a list of speakers, and each one of them has one minute. I have only received four speakers for this round. So the way I propose we're gonna organize it is that I'm gonna give the floor to four speakers, one minute each, and then I'm gonna give eight minutes to the commissioner to respond.
So the speakers I have here are Mister Oliver Shank, Miss Aura Sala, Mister Niels Fleming Hansen, and Mister Radhan Khanif. I'll go first to Mister Oliver Shank, and just want to remind everyone else that you still have the possibility to ask a question through the KHDI. So do indicate that, by putting your nameplate vertically. Mister Schenk, you have the floor.
Oliver Schenk
I would like to speak German. Thank.
Thank you very much indeed for joining us, Madam Commissioner, today. I have a question on the Einstein Telescope, which I think is a huge opportunity for our continent with a flagship project to attract scientists from the world over and to bring about some major developments. It's fundamental research. It requires financing. It requires decisions about how we can go about this, and a decision on where this is going to happen.
So I'd be interested to hear your ideas about this project, what your role might be in the whole process, how you think the decision process should work, and whether there is any time plan in the commission as to how we do this, because there are massive opportunities linked with this, and we should get it up and running as quickly as possible.
Ms. Sala, please.
Aura Salla
Thank you, Sarah. Following my colleagues here, the EU Inc. Proposal is understandably a disappointment for our start-up community. So it might be possible to establish a company in the EU now within 48 hours. However, the proposal really only makes a couple of improvements: digital and once-only reporting rules, harmonized taxation on stock options, and flexible funding rules, which are welcome, of course.
On employment, taxation, insolvency, and social security, we never expected much. But under your proposal, member states would be obliged to introduce a new harmonized company form into their national business registries, while national courts would continue to define the common corporate rules. So in reality, scaling companies will still need to navigate 27 systems. I unfortunately expect even this proposal to be watered down in the council. So why weren't you more bold with your proposal, and this house would have backed you and will?
Thank you.
Mister Niels Fleminghansen.
Niels Flemming Hansen
please. Thank you very much, and thank you to my colleagues for all their good questions. Of course, we very much welcome the EU ink proposal. At the same time, I would be interested in understanding a bit better how the commission sees the practical implementation. If registration remains with national authorities and interpretation with national courts, how will we ensure that the regime functions as one coherent European framework in practice?
And in that context, how will the commission support startups, especially smaller ones, so that they are not faced with legal uncertainty or different interpretations across member states. Because ultimately, the success of EU Inc. Will depend on whether it generally reduces complexity and creates predictability for those who we are trying to support. And finally, how does the commission plan to respond if we begin to see national practices or court interpretations that risk undermining the consistency of the system? Thank you.
Eva Maydell
I don't see mister Conif, but mister Solier would like to be part of the KHDI. So if you want, I could give you the floor now in this round of speakers. Is that okay for you? Yep. Go ahead.
Diego Solier
Thank you very much. I would like to speak Spanish.
Commissioner, one of the main problems for startups isn't the lack of ideas or talent, as you said, or even the lack of funding sometimes. It's the regulatory complexity. A lot of them have to fill in lots of different forms in different areas because they're working in digital skills, sustainability, and so on, using different criteria and duplicated processes. Commission has come up with the 28th regime to make it easier to invest at European level. But once these companies have been set up, they still have to comply with all the existing rules, many of which are fragmented and complex.
Simple question, how is the commission planning to genuinely simplify the regulatory framework for start-ups? Maybe we could reduce complexity, maybe through new instruments. Thank you.
Eva Maydell
Thank you for your question. Commissioner, over to you. You have about eight minutes.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
Thank you. Thank you, Missus Maido. Thank you for your question. I will start with the first question from mister Oliver Shank about the Einstein Telescope. And I really like this project.
I have actually received a couple of questions about this Einstein Telescope. And you know that we are really supportive to the national governments, coming together around the project for pan European gravitation waves detector with 3,500,000 euro from Horizon, to support the preparatory work. We already did distribute the half, and we are going to propose an additional 1,500,000.0 by the end of this year. The commission plays no role in the decision of the sites. This is what I'm going to say again and again, of the telescope and remains completely neutral.
However, the Einstein Telescope project is an example of the need to bring the right partners together to reach an agreement on realizing a shared project for European leadership. We are aware of the current debate between competing detector designs, and we stress the importance of scientific excellence in the final decision. So this is what I'm going to say about this project. But I really believe it's important. I really hope the decision and the compromise to be find based on scientific excellence.
This is really important. On the other the two question, the there were question, with from, Niels Lemminghansen and missus Sauer, more or less linked with the twenty eighth regime. I really believe that, first of all, I was really fighting for a very ambitious, 28th regime in the limits of our treaties. That's very important. And I believe that, actually, the reactions after they saw the commission proposal of the whole package of the startup community was quite positive.
Really positive. There was still a couple of remaining requests and issues, one of which is court. And I already addressed this question. We have limits on the court in the treaty. So what we can do, and this is also in your report because, also, you recognize the limits.
in the
Ekaterina Zaharieva
treaties, to recommend the member states to create specialized chambers or specialized courts who are going to solve the disputes for EU Inc. I know it's not a court. It's different. It's not a complete harmonization. It's different.
But still, this specialization, I think, will help to harmonize, so to say, how we implement the legislation itself and to speed up the dispute, solving of the disputes. With the limits that we have, we managed to propose a harmonization of the timing of employee stock options, which was very much requested by our community. And I really hope that this will be supported in the council. As you rightly said, it can be even difficult to find a compromise of this to harmonize a timing when we tax, not to tax in advance. So it's important.
There were also discussion, and I hope you're going to debate it, and you can propose to harmonize also the type of taxation, how we tax them. Is it personal income, or is it?
Capital gains.
Ekaterina Zaharieva
Capital gains? We believe it should be capital gains. So this is about these two issues about the court. On insolvency, just a couple of months ago, I think, we managed to find a compromise on the, I don't know how many years this trial continues. But I can tell you, I was a justice minister, and it was in 2016, when we started discussion in the council about how to harmonize these solvency procedures, how to make it easier, more smooth for our companies.
Even we are not talking about the start up and scale ups that time so much. So I know it's not easy, and actually, we did propose a harmonization for start-ups. So I hope this ambition will remain. It will help a lot our innovative companies because by nature, innovative startups are more risky. It's more likely they to fail no matter how much they try and how much efforts they put.
And I remember that during the hackathons that we organized with the startup community, one of the main demands that I heard from them was, help us to close our incorporation and our entities because they are zombie companies. So many zombie companies, they call them zombie companies, exist in Europe because it's so complicated and expensive to close an enterprise that even we don't try. So I think with the proposal of this, simplification for innovative startups, we make a huge progress in support of our startups. About the registration, you know that in our proposal, we have put a single register, of course, in the beginning because we don't want to delay this, entering the force of the twenty-eighth regime and waiting for some future register to happen. We are going to use one interface, one entry point, which is going to make a connection with the whole 27 register and why we are working on one single registry. But what is really important, it will be one only principle implemented.
Through one single entry point, they're going to communicate digitally and fast and cheap with all national registered and, of course, with all authorities. They have to register, not in different, multiple authorities, even in one member state. About the other question that was maybe catch, I didn't. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry.
Yeah. About the fact that its complexity is one of the main complaints. Yeah. We know. And, we can, with all the omnibuses that actually we propose from the commission, it's actually lead to simplifying the landscape for our entrepreneurs.
This includes, of course, innovative startup and scale ups, innovative incorporation, you know, innovative companies. So it's not possible with one act to harmonize everything. If you ask me what is always, I will when I receive questions, what is, in your opinion, the most important action in the start up and scale up strategy, that is going to improve the situation for our innovative companies? I'm always saying it's one deepening the single market. That includes all the acts, all the initiatives that we have on the table are coming from the commission.
This is saving an investment union, terrible tense, and all the obstacles that we have. It's deepening the single market, completing the capital market union. This is how we're going to harmonize and deepen and support our innovative startups and scale ups.
Eva Maydell
Thank you, commissioner. Because we've been very good with the time, I'm just looking one more time if anyone has another last chance of posing a question. If you didn't manage, follow up from those that already asked the question. I think you are very clear on your interventions, commissioner. So thank you very much for this exchange.
As someone mentioned earlier, the world is moving at a very fast pace. So having you often with us is much appreciated, so that we can ask topical and pertinent questions. Thank you to the members as well. I just need to check whether we'll start a bit earlier or we'll start at 4:30. Just give us a second to check.
when, how
Eva Maydell
We proceed with the next point. One of the next speakers is not here yet. So, as per the agenda, we are gonna begin the next point at 04:30. Thank you. We have a short break, if you wish, or a catch-up session.
Speaker 39
Apologies for someone in the room. We are running some tests from the English booth channel. Apologies to everyone in the room who's listening to the English channel. This is a test, this test, and we really apologize. It's in the middle of the meeting, but it's just a technical test from the English booth.
One, two, three, testing. One, two, three, testing. Apologies again to each of the listeners who is listening to the English channel. Again, one, two, three, test. One, two, three, test.
Speaker 40
This is a test to adjust the level of the English booth blind accessibility feature. We apologize to everyone in the room. This is just a technical test to assess the accessibility for blind people of consoles.
Eva Maydell
Good afternoon once again. Our meeting will resume now. Thank you, everyone, for remaining in the room and joining this debate. It's my pleasure to welcome you to one of our topical debates. And if I may say, this one is particularly topical, and the debate's name is ending all dependencies on Russian energy, Russian nuclear phase out.
I would like to very much thank, but also welcome our two guests today. It's nice to introduce you to Miss Naya Spanacci, the energy attaché of
the Cyprus
Eva Maydell
Presidency. Welcome, madam Spanacci, as well as miss Met Shield Vorstofer, the deputy director general of DG Energy, for being with us today. For this debate, we have approximately an hour. It would be concluded in accordance to the speaker list, and I invite all members to stick to their time. And also for those interested in participating through the catch the eye procedure, put vertically your name, plates.
Before we begin with the group representatives, just a few words as chair. I think it's one of those, as I said, very topical debates, and I very much hope that we are followed online as well as from various offices that might not be present in the room today. I think the current crisis that we find ourselves in today, further shows how exposed Europe still is to the global energy shocks. I think the conflict in the Middle East is tightening supply and pushing prices up. And even if we do not import much, that depends on in which member state you sit, though, directly from the region.
After all, energy is global, and it affects us all. When supply drops anywhere, it is our citizens in Europe who pay the price. And I say this by us very well being aware this is the case because we have witnessed that before. After 2022, we moved fast to reduce dependencies on Russian energy, but we did not fully solve the problem. We, in a way, replaced one dependency with another, and today, we are more exposed to global LNG markets and price volatilities than we were before.
So in a crisis, Europe can still secure energy, but at a much higher cost. And that cost hits our industry, it hits our households, and our competitiveness. If we do not tackle the energy prices, we can only dream, so to say, of the much wanted and desired competitiveness of these institutions. After all, competitiveness was one of the buzzwords of this city for almost two years. In every single encounter that I have had with the commission in the past two years, I have said that if we wanna talk about competitiveness, the first thing we need to solve is to have affordable, and I would say cheaper, energy prices.
If we do not tackle that basis, we can do many other things to support the single market, to support our companies or our industries, but it will not be enough. Because from the very beginning, we are not at par with others with other nations and other countries in the world who have secured that cheaper energy and also are not as dependent as we are. Every single time I meet the commissioner on energy, this is the first and only question I have for him. And in my opinion, and then I'll give the floor to the speakers to kick start that debate, in my opinion, if the commissioner has one job to do in the past year and a half since in office, it was to make sure that energy is at a different price range than it is today, and that it was in the past year and a half. We can have a lot of plans and strategies.
But if our industry is unable to feel the difference, to have that energy at a different price range, they would never be as competitive as they can be. So with this, I would like to give the floor to the first speaker, Miss Andrea Wexler from the EPP. Miss Wexler, you have two minutes, and then we'll continue with the rest of the speakers. And afterwards, we will go to our guests from the council and the commission for their remarks of five minutes. Miss Wexler, two minutes, please.
Andrea Wechsler
Madame Maidell, thank you very much. Dear madam Westerfa and missus Banati, thank you very much for joining us today. One thing is clear for the EPP, and this is non-negotiable. Europe must be energy independent, never again vulnerable to Russia. And yet, to nuclear, the dependency persists, which is a strategic vulnerability for our security and sovereignty.
And so, yes, we must end all dependence on Russian nuclear materials and services. But this must be done responsibly, step by step, and without weakening Europe's energy system. So in terms of security, and as Missus Medell has said, affordability. So the question is not whether to phase out, but how. And here are my questions.
First, on the legal nature of the proposal that we are awaiting. When the commission will present its timeline for phasing out Russian nuclear imports, will this include legally enforceable milestones or remain voluntary? Second, on capacity building and financing. What concrete measures is the commission taking to build European capacities across the entire nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium supply to conversion and enrichment? And is the current 303 €30 million program efficient given the scale of the dependency?
Is the commission prepared to mobilize significantly larger funding to match the scale of the challenge? Third, on investment and infrastructure building. How will you ensure that investments are fast-tracked given long lead times and regulatory barriers? And how will the commission address permitting and regulatory bottlenecks, which currently slow down investments in conversion and enrichment facilities? Now on timeline and substitution.
For member states operating the ER reactors, what is the realistic timeline for fuel diversification? And can you guarantee that alternatives are available at scale and at competitive cost? How will the commission ensure that higher costs from diversification do not undermine the competitiveness of Europe's industry and electricity prices? And last, a worst-case scenario might be there. Has the commission conducted a stress test on the EU nuclear fuel supply in case of sudden disruptions of Russian imports?
Thank you.
Eva Maydell
Thank you, Miss Wexler. These were very clear questions. We do not have a representative from the S and D taking part in this first exchange, so we move to the PPE. Mr. Thomas Deutsch, you have the floor.
Thank.
Tamás Deutsch
You, chair. As you yourself have said, in the modern history of economy, this is one of the most serious crises that national economies and households face up to. We have really high fuel prices in Hungary. There's an oil blockade by Ukraine against Hungary and Slovakia. And in this situation, what is the decision taken by the left in this house?
We need another debate about getting rid of Russian nuclear energy, which is practically indispensable at the moment. Right at the beginning, I would like to make it clear that this is a total strategic misunderstanding, this is the wrong way. This decision has been made based on ideological reasons. Practically, this is the cheapest source of energy. The eastern energy is the cheapest source of energy, and we are taking it away from businesses and families.
We cannot replace it with anything. And on top of all this, you are undermining national sovereignty as well. The treaties state that every member state has the right to set up its own energy mix. It decides at what price and what energy it buys. So Hungary refuses to accept this European policy that shoots itself in the foot.
We are enlarging the opportunities of using nuclear energy peacefully. Hungary has increased its renewable use as well. We are protecting citizens with capped prices. We are protecting companies with capped prices, and we refuse to give up this policy. This was the most successful program.
We are reducing the overhead costs for our citizens and companies. We have access to this energy and where our energy price is the lowest in the EU, in Hungary. So I think you shouldn't attack us, but follow our example. Thank you.
Eva Maydell
Thank you. We do not have an ECR representative that will take the floor as part of this round, so we will move to the renew representative, mister Christopher Gridler.
Thank.
Christophe Grudler
You, chair. Putting an end to dependence on Russian energy is a strategic need for Europe. Of course, it is. But we need to assess the situation with nuclear power very carefully. Nuclear is the keystone of our supply security.
We produce it domestically, and we control central parts of the supply chain, and it protects us from external shocks. If we close the borders tomorrow, we've got 10 years of autonomy with the uranium we've got here. We've got 3 months for gas, so that's important. Then it's fairly well, it's not as big as gas or oil. It's only about 10%.
Gas is much more important overall. And then nuclear's circular. 90% of the fuel can be recycled. So we do have a dependency on Russia, but it's a targeted dependency. It's mainly about VVER 440 WWER reactors.
We've got 19 of those. And they can only use Russian fuel. The commission has tried to look into research together with Euratom from Westinghouse. We've then got a partial solution. You mentioned Hungary.
Ukraine has been building VVER reactors, but we should be looking at small reactors for solutions. So we need to move away from Russian nuclear. We've got alternatives. We've got solutions, and member states are diversifying their resources. But if we don't send out a resounding political message, these efforts will not be sufficient.
The US set out a cap on imports of enriched Russian uranium for 2024. Europe is still waiting. For one and a half years now, we've been well, we keep being told in six months. But it's very hard to replace WWR with coal, for example. So we need objectives, clear subject for phase-out, and we need support for industrial capacities, especially when it comes to funding.
I've got two questions for you. The commission will respect its commitments and come forward with a legislative proposal? Is there a time frame for that? And will there be aggressive quotas with a clear exit time, which will benefit the industry and the operators?
Jutta Paulus
Thank you, chair, and thank you to the Cypriot presidency and also to DG and Eir for being with us and discussing this with us. I have an interesting information which I found on the World Wide Web saying that Ukraine's nuclear power plants have been supplied with fuel by Westinghouse since 2005, so since 20 years. So can the commission maybe explain why the EU is so reluctant to follow suit here with the nuclear sector never having been in a proposal of sanctions ever since Putin's invasion of Ukraine? And how come that Francis Framatome sees a need to cooperate with Rosatom sharing knowledge, maybe even confidential information with Russian engineers walking in and out of the fuel oil production site in Lingen? Does the Commission see a security risk there?
Because I do. And may I remind the Commission that we just passed legislation last year for the phase out of Russian gas, where we have enshrined in the legislation that the Commission should present a legislative proposal for the phaseout of Russian oil by 04/15/2026, by the latest. Can you confirm that this proposal will be there on time? And how does the timeline look for the phaseout of Russian nuclear technology and materials? Thank you.
Rudi Kennes
Yes. Thank you, chair. I will speak in Dutch again. Europe.
is facing an energy crisis. Who's going to fill the bill? Well, it'd be families. If we don't go for renewables, we'll be dependent. But what we're doing is we're not investing in renewables.
Not as much as we should have. What are we doing instead? We're creating expensive terminals to import NGL from the US. And all of this is funding a war in the Middle East. And this is a war.
It's not a conflict. Conflict will be between two states. This is a war. We've dismantled our nuclear, and rightfully so, but we don't know how to replace it. We're seeing increasing energy supply demands, which are not able to be met.
Prices are increasing, and EU policies have betrayed all of those they should be helping. Workers are facing hefty bills. Businesses are struggling. The climate is being harmed. And we have been able to bring about a change in Putin's behavior.
We're punishing our populations, and Putin continues unchecked. The solution was never gas from the US. We need to invest in renewables, in grids, and in energy self sufficiency. We're shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't change tack. Thank you.
Eva Maydell
Thank you. With this, we've exhausted the first round of speakers, so I would like to turn to our guests for remarks. We'll start with Miss Naya Spanacci. Miss Spanacci, you have the floor for 5 minutes.
Speaker 48
So let me start by thanking everyone for having me here today. And for the debate, I think it falls within the overall agenda of what was happening right now globally. Even though most of the questions were not directly to the presidency, what I can say is that we stand ready to cooperate with the commission on any upcoming proposals, including the existing ones, so the EU Grids package to meet the EU targets that we have, and, of course, to meet what is also a goal of the presidency, the fact that we are very much realizing that autonomy is part of the heart of our union. Indeed, we need to reduce our global dependencies, but at the same time, enable to find strategic partners globally to cooperate and coordinate and reach our common grounds. And energy discussion and energy prices have been very much part of all our efforts.
Speaker 49
We've seen all the work done preparing for the energy ministerial council on March 16, which brought forward all the ministers to discuss energy prices and global dependencies and give a direction for us as the presidency to go on with the legislative files in place and to bring forward at the heart what we have. What I can say overall is that a lot of work is indeed needed, but at the same time, solidarity among The United States is something that we've seen since the start of the war, and we encourage everyone to continue with it alongside all the efforts done. Thank you.
Eva Maydell
Thank you. We'll move now to the remarks from the deputy director general. I just would like to ask colleagues who would like to take the floor for the KHDI. I see only one colleague, but I think there might be more. So please just, yeah, put your nameplates vertically.
I would, exceptionally though, perfect. Would exceptionally, though, after the intervention by the deputy director general, give the floor to the initial speakers if they have a short follow-up or if they feel that their question has not been addressed. Thank you.
Speaker 50
Thank you very much, Madam Scheer. It's a pleasure to be here on this important topical debate, and the situation we are in right now. Maybe I say first a few words about what you said in the beginning. Competitiveness, affordability, security, and decarbonization are the top priorities. And this commission started around a year ago with a clean industrial deal and the action plan on affordable energy.
So it's really on my commissioners and all of our minds to work on affordability, what we can do short term, and I come back to that, but also medium and longer term. And combining security, competitiveness, and decarbonization, our president made it clear also in the last European Council on Thursday, we need more homegrown energy. And that is renewables, nuclear, old low carbon solutions, which make us less dependent in general. And I think if we compare the situation now since three weeks and the situation in The Middle East, of course, the geopolitical tension has even risen more. We are monitoring the situation daily.
We have a really crisis meeting. We are looking at the development of prices. I would say, compared to 2022 in gas and oil, we are not there. And jet fuels and diesel, there is the biggest worry when we look at the prices. In terms of security of supply, in terms of gas and oil, these are global markets.
There is enough. But of course, the price impact is something which we are extremely worried about and we are working with all our member states. We had the Energy Council last Monday. We had the EUCO. And of course, this will be and remain top of the agenda, also with our partners abroad.
So in general, affordability, prices, whatever we can do, we are working very hard on it with our member states. You saw the president's letter before the European Council last week on all four components of energy. So taxes are one, levies, network charges, ETS cost, and the energy component. As such, we are working on all four to help target temporary solution where needed. And of course, as I said, what the European Council restated as well, we need to continue to accelerate the clean transition with renewables, nuclear and grids and energy efficiency, of course.
So that as an introduction. Then I try to come back now to the topical debate of phase out of Russian nuclear energy imports from Russia. So, of course, this is very much linked to our priority on energy security and diversification. We have done a lot of work on diversification also.
Speaker 50
The nuclear sector, and we started with the Repower EU plan after the Russian full-scale invasion in Ukraine in 2022, and then also the road map more concretely on ending Russian imports in 2025. And what we can say is that we have made significant progress within the four years to diversify away from Russian energy imports. While we were implementing the Repower EU plan, somebody already mentioned that the decision, and thanks a lot to the European Parliament, on phasing out Russian gas had been adopted in record time. And this is we adopted an additional guidance a few days ago. So this is really something we can all, I think, be of because Council and Parliament were very much supporting it.
On nuclear, as it was also said by Mr. Kudler, the most critical dependency still exists in those member states that rely on Russian technology for nuclear reactors, VVER, and that is Finland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Hungary. We have made sure that they are all doing their plans for diversification and ending the dependence on nuclear fuel. And today, most EU utilities can purchase nuclear fuel from at least two alternative suppliers and except, of course, as I said, for BBR. We have also, together with the colleagues, set up diversification efforts through the Europe TOM research and training program to Western companies to develop alternative fuel solutions.
This is going hand in hand with the diversification efforts. And these are the companies which were mentioned: Framatom and Westinghouse. All concerned EU nuclear power plant operators in all five member states have taken action, and we are supporting strongly these efforts. Let me just say one word on conversion and enrichment services. This is a bit more challenging to diversify because the EU depends on Russian uranium conversion by 22%.
And we have a scenario in our plan where we will have capacity without these Russian imports, which barely matches foreseen demand until 2050. So when it then comes, thirdly, to enrichment supply capacity, we also depend on 23% of EU demand from Russia. But here, EU industry is strong and ready to step up to increase the EU supplies. As I said, we are working with all member states which are having BBR. We are working on we power nuclear as we are working on repower oil.
I cannot give you an exact timeline because, with the current situation, we have to assess and make sure that security of supply is there. It's really our biggest concern, together, as I said in the beginning, with the affordability. So we share very much what has been said, that there is a responsibility to go step by step, balance the security and affordability of what was said. We are also looking that we will make an end to the dependence on Russian fuels and Russian oil in the future. So this is very much what we are working on, but I cannot give you more details on the legal nature of the proposal yet.
And maybe one word on Ukraine, because it was true what Jutta Paulo said. But here, our dependency is even more complex and new alternative nuclear fuels need to be licensed by different independent nuclear regulators. So Ukraine used in the past vesting house fuel and restored it after the war. And that is now something we are working on, if I understand correctly. I stop here.
Thank you very much.
Eva Maydell
Thank you, deputy director-general. As I said, exceptionally for thirty seconds, should any of the coordinators and group representatives want to take the floor, you can now. I know mister Grudler wants, but we start in the order of the group. So, Miss Wexler.
Andrea Wechsler
Yeah. Thank you very much. Just two remarks. Yes. I see the action plan for affordable energy, but the reality is that people on the ground don't feel the effect.
So the urgency is high, and we haven't even mentioned hydrogen once. The commission has it in its hands to really speed up the hydrogen infrastructure now, and that, I think, is crucial. And please take that as a message today. Apart from that, I think we are to show generally the GRIDS package as well. If it takes us a year to negotiate, this is not the speed we should be working at.
Thank you.
Eva Maydell
Would the commission want to respond directly, please? Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 50
So first of all, I fully agree. We tested our hydrogen regulatory firm last Thursday in Rotterdam. We discussed the regulatory framework, what needs to be done in order to implement what's on the table in RED III or in the decarbonization of gas and hydrogen package. We will look deeper with our study on the delegated act on renewable hydrogen, and also do everything ready to help Member States on the supply, demand, and of course, the infrastructure on hydrogen. And that leads me to the grids package.
This is something we are negotiating right now with the council, and we hope very much that the parliament can go as fast as possible. We are there to help, of course, but it's now in the hands of the co-legislators. Thank you.
Speaker 48
So on the grids luggage, we are very much working towards having as much progress as possible by the end of the presidency. Our minister during the hearings here at the European Parliament did say that the general approach is the goal of the presidency. So the work there is towards that. That meant we had the first discussion during the council in the Danish presidency, and then we had the second discussion at ministerial level during the council on March 16. And right now, we are at a technical level discussing all the elements of the legislation to progress with the negotiations and do have a goal of delivering this package on time.
Speaker 49
And, ultimately, the goal indeed is affordable energy. So we recognize the significance of the package in delivering that, and that's why we called upon all the member states to be open for the presidency with negotiations to have a very positive outcome overall. Thank you.
Eva Maydell
Thank you. From the coordinators of the team, Mister Grudler wants to take the
Christophe Grudler
Thank you, madam chair. I'll be speaking French once again. There's so much that could be said, but put it in a nutshell. I find it regrettable in the pink, the initiative nuclear program, which was presented by the commission. There was no estimation of the financing needs within the fuel cycle.
They thought about a lot of things, but the fuel cycle, there was nothing in it. Last week, I was at the Paris Global Nuclear Summit with President Van der Leyen, who recognized the mistake on nuclear. Said, yes. We got it wrong. Well, yes, if you've admitted it, you're half pardoned.
But the next question is how can we make up for that mistake, if not through funding? So that brings me on to my question on European taxonomy. It's going to be revised this year. And is the commission thinking about including the complete nuclear fuel cycle as one of the activities contributing to the climate transition? Because just to recap, under your pressure, we put nuclear energy in as a transitional energy.
Speaker 50
Now it's sustainable, and I think we have to say that in the taxonomy text. Thank you. Thank you for that question. First and foremost, thank you for having mentioned the Paris Nuclear Summit on March 10. It was a huge success.
The President said, as you said, that this belonged to the past. It was a choice of the member states, not the Commission. But at the same time, it's also true that if we look ahead, she also announced a €200,000,000 guarantee fund to finance innovative nuclear technologies such as SMRs. And we adopted the communication because we see there being a clear role for SMRs post-2030, but also for fusion, as you mentioned. I think we're on the right path towards speeding up and financing innovative nuclear technology, and on taxonomy, well, that's in its with the court right now because there was an appeal that came from Austria.
Speaker 52
So we're not doing anything with it right now, but we are open to all necessary discussions if and when they arise. Thank you.
Eva Maydell
You. We will move now to the KHDI, and I have four speakers who have requested the floor. Miss, Davor Evo Steer, Miss Isabelle, Lovan, Chris Van Dick, and Diana Ivanovici Sosa Kah. So we'll start with Mister Steer for one minute, and then we'll take the rest of the three requests, and we'll come back to the floor here. Thank you.
Davor Ivo Stier
Thank you, madam chair. And a question for the deputy director. You we said already that this question of European security to phase out Russian fossil fuels. We got legislation on gas. At that moment, also, the commission promised to have new legislation on banning imports of oil.
You said that, for the nuclear, you don't have the timeline, but do we have any clarity about the sequencing? Do we will go first with the legislation on oil? May I remind that it comes mostly to Hungary and Slovakia now that Druzhba is not working? We saw that there is an alternative because they are using the Adriatic pipeline. Six already tankers have been shipped and oil fuel to both Hungary and Slovakia.
Seventh is coming tomorrow. So there is a viable alternative. So what will be eventually the sequence when it comes to oil and nuclear? Thank you.
Chris Van Dyke, please.
Kris Van Dijck
Thank you. I'll be speaking Dutch. Well, obviously, we can't go back to the past. The past is the past. And what we do now will shape our future.
We also depend on policies adopted in the various member states. But I think it's right to say that there have been some major mistakes made, some people leaving behind nuclear in certain member states and dismantling as well. We've seen a lot of this happening in the EU. So I have an appeal on four different points: firstly, for keeping current plants open, secondly, international contacts on supply, because, as we heard, there is supply, but I'm thinking of Canada, Australia and others, other democracies that supply fuels. Thirdly, the role of recycling, oxides, and other things that could be reused.
And then you were talking about SMRs. Eight projects are currently underway. And I would also call for account to be taken of the need for uniform rules on security and use in Europe, because that way, we can have results that can then be extended at European level. Thank you.
Isabella Lövin
Thank you, madam president. I will speak in Swedish.
Thank you. Yes, indeed, we are facing a huge crisis, but that doesn't mean we could drag our feet. We need to speed things up for our own security. And certain measures have been adopted following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We've tried to reduce our dependency on gas.
And we're really looking forward to the Commission's proposals on the phasing out of all Russian oil. We wonder when that will be available. I heard someone mention April 15. But the commission really needs to come up with a proposal on the security side, the safety of Russian nuclear plants. A certain percentage of our fuel comes from there, but there are security issues that exist.
My colleague was talking about the presence of certain Russian officials in some of the plants in Europe, but you didn't really give us an answer on that. And then on the SMRs, there are more and more plants, but I was wondering what the commission thinks about the risks linked to the existence of increasing numbers of nuclear power plants in Europe. Thank you.
Eva Maydell
And the last person from the KHDI is Diana Jovanovici Sosakka from the Non-Attached. Please, madam.
Thank you. I will speak Romanian.
Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă
Thank you. Well, yes, I'm going to speak from the point of view of Romania, a country that's made major strides towards energy autonomy. But we're in one of the most vulnerable positions because of the war in Ukraine and also the Israeli-Iranian war and US military bases in Romania. So in terms of security of diversification on the Eastern Front, Russia is investing heavily, or Europe is investing heavily in American technology with SMRs. How is the commission going to support the networks in the EU and the VVER networks? SMRs have still not been authorized in other countries because of the risk attached to them.
So what are the types of solidarity mechanisms provided for Europe? Should Russia decide to stop supplying nuclear fuel to its neighboring countries, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, that could give rise to an energy deficit on neighboring markets. We have some uranium stocks and the ability to transform them. Can you imagine having tax breaks or support or special programs planned?
Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă
The commission in order to reopen and modernize uranium mines in Europe? We've heard about the 20% to 40% quota of uranium imported right now from Russia. How can we speed up access for European companies to enrichment possibilities where Russia has basically an autonomy, so that we can become a monopoly, that we become autonomous in Europe. So all of the major states, including Russia, China, well, they simply want to shake off their links with the EU. Thank you.
Eva Maydell
You to all the speakers. I'll turn now to our two guests. There were some concrete questions to the deputy director general, so perhaps you would like to go first, and then we'll wrap up with the Cyprus presidency. Please.
Speaker 50
First of all, many thanks for your questions and for highlighting again the aspect of European security. I think we are working very hard right now on, as I said, on affordability and security given that we don't know how long this crisis will last, to be honest. I mean, all the geographical tensions and how long this trade of Hormuz will be de facto closed, we don't know, but we are preparing for different scenarios. On the question of diversification and gas, oil, nuclear phase out. I cannot, I mean, gas, as I mentioned, this has been the top priority, and I'm very happy that we are very happy that it went so fast and it's being implemented.
And there's no doubt about it, that's being implemented, that my commissioner made very clear as well. On oil and nuclear, I cannot give an exact time, unfortunately. We are working on both. So it's very clear. And on the Droshba pipeline, which is, of course, also under debate right now, you're right.
There are alternatives via the Itran pipeline. We had several meetings on that. So from a security of supply point of view, there is. On oil, maybe just to add that we have the 90 days of oil stocks. All member states are in line with that.
There had been a voluntary oil stock release coordinated by the IEA a week ago, which had some impact on the prices, but we have to see how it goes. Then in the past, indeed, Member States' choices, it's not up to us to criticize them. What I can say is that we are working very closely with all the member states right now and with the international partners. That's a very important point. We are working really, my commissioner was in Baku.
We are working, of course, with the U. S, Canada, Algeria, many other partners around the world, also for diversification and security of supply. On SMRs, you have seen our strategy. We proposed very concretely 9 actions and projects to speed up the deployment of SMRs. And there was also one question on what if there are no imports of Russian fuels at all.
There is a stockpile, which is roughly 3 years, which would work for 3 years of uranium nuclear fuels. If I understand correctly, yes. So that gives a little bit of security. But of course, we are working on further diversification. I think I replied to the question, but as I said, it's top on our radar, the security and the affordability in the current context.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Miss Banaci?
Speaker 48
So to complement what the deputy director general said, indeed, working with international partners is a cornerstone of all our efforts, both short term and long term. To ensure security of supply, we need to understand what our dependencies are, and a lot of work has been done on these both sides from the commission side and from the carnassal side. And this can be very much seen on the output of both the discussions, the documents, and the letters shared by commissioner Jorgensen over the last days, especially when it comes to energy prices in Europe. So when it comes to how we viewed as a presidency, I will go back to the motto of what we have set out. We are hoping for an autonomous union open to the world, and these partnerships are a cornerstone of that, especially new partnerships alongside and at the same time building on trusted partners.
Speaker 49
So indeed, we welcome both the visit of commissioner Jochenesen to Algeria to discuss fuel supplies to Europe, but also other partners as well globally. And then when it comes to your security of supply, in the short term, I think a lot of effort is done by the member states. We can see that by a lot of the work that is done both within the council level. Tomorrow, we'll have a debriefing by colleagues from the commission on what is going on on the oil and gas coordination groups, take a look at the situation, and take a few other actions if needed on a coordination basis. And then, on the long term, we are indeed working on delivering what we all set out to do, which is affordable energy.
Thank you.
Eva Maydell
Thank you very much. I think this concludes the official part of this discussion and our committee meeting for the day. As a committee, we have initiated these sorts of hearings in order for us to be on top of the most important discussions. And once we approved that hearing with the coordinators, we did not think perhaps that the topic will be so pertinent for the moment. And as you can see, we touched upon a number of points not just related to the phasing out of Russia nuclear dependency.
Thank you for your time. I think there's another thing that was clear, that everyone that spoke wants to see a better speed that results in a price difference and less dependencies. I think in a couple of years, if we look back to today, we'll probably refer to this as a major crisis that has implications for years to come. That would be felt worldwide, but in Europe's economy, definitely. And I think one thing to learn from this is that back four years ago, looking back, we should have been way more resolute within our efforts.
So, ideally, this time, we're gonna work hard, but in a much more resolute way. Thank you so much, and best of success. You have a very hard job.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.