Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection 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
IMCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 5
We are at a point where we need to be clear-eyed about where we stand. Europe has enormous strengths. We have world class researchers, innovative companies, and a strong industrial base, but we are not consistently turning those strengths into growth, productivity, and global competitiveness in the way we solve. Too often, the barriers are not external. They are internal. Fragmentation in the single market and necessary regulatory complexity and gaps in investment continue to hold businesses back.
That is the context in which we are discussing the U. Competitiveness Fund. This fund must not just be well-intentioned, but actually effective. It must work for businesses, support investment where it is needed, and strengthen the single market rather than adding to its complexity. If we are not clear about that, then we risk designing a fund that is too diffuse and tries to do too many things at once.
Next, the fund must be market-led and targeted. Public funding on its own will not be enough to meet Europe's investment needs. If we want to support the startups, scale ups and SMEs to grow and remain in Europe, we need to create the conditions for private capital to flow and to use public funding in a way that reduces risk and encourages investment. The fund should contribute to reduce barriers in the single market that includes supporting interoperable infrastructure, improving access to markets, and ensuring that businesses can compete on the basis of excellence and innovation rather than their ability to navigate complexity. Next SMS must be at the heart of this fund.
They are the backbone of the European economy, but too often, they struggle to access EU funding. The reasons are well known. High application cost, complex procedures, lack of information, and uncertain outcomes all play a role. That is why a central focus of these amendments is on simplification and accessibility. That means clear processes, better information, stronger advisory support, and a more user-centric design overall.
If we want this fund to succeed, it needs to work for SMEs in practice, not just in principle. Importantly, we need a balanced and pragmatic approach to resilience. There is a clear need to reduce high-risk dependencies and strengthen Europe's economic security, but this must be done in a targeted way. We should avoid measures that risk undermining openness, competition, or long-term innovation. Europe's strength has always been its openness to trade, investment, and ideas.
That openness should remain a core part of our approach, even as we take steps to address vulnerabilities where they exist. And finally, I want to emphasize the importance of simplicity and focus. There is always a tendency in legislative work to add more detail, more conditions and more layers of lawyers in an effort to cover every scenario. But there is a real risk that in doing so, we create a system that is harder to use and less effective. So we should focus on clear principles rather than excessive detail to set a strong framework, but avoid unnecessary administrative burden and red tape that could discourage participation, particularly for the smaller businesses.
And if the fund becomes too complex, then the businesses we want to support will simply not engage with it. And that will be a missed opportunity. If we get this right, the European competitiveness fund can play a real role in supporting investment, driving innovation, and making the single market work better for businesses across all member states. I look forward to continuing to work constructively with all of you as we take this file forward. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2
Thank you so much. So now we come to the round of shadows or the replacements, and we start with the SND. The shadow of Pierre Jovi, but he will be replaced by Miss Krapini. Thank.
Maria Grapini
Thank you very much, dear colleagues. Thank you, chair. The European industry is at a crossroads. We are faced with American industry, Chinese industry, and our own fragmentation. This fund can be a response.
Our role is to make sure that this tool does help us respond to these challenges. And to do so, we need to make some things very clear. What are we talking about? The commission is putting forward a competitiveness fund without defining what competitiveness truly means. There is no word on that.
We have labels, money allocations, and so on, but we don't really have substance for what we're trying to achieve here. How do we measure success here? This is missing. Have white check here. We don't have clarity, but the amendments do improve it.
We now have a clear definition of what competitivity is, where we're not just aiming for lower and lower standards, companies that innovate, well-paid jobs, an internal market that works for everyone, not competitivity for the sake of it, but rather one that serves citizens. This is what we need, and our amendments on added European value start here. These funds need to finance what member states cannot do on their own, and we need to have clear benefits for SMEs and consumers. As far as SMEs are concerned, we request to allocate at least 30% of resources, simplified procedures, and apply the principles of only one and of the one office and the recognition of regional intermediaries. And we need all of this because otherwise, some less advanced areas will be excluded.
Now our amendments are very clear. The fund needs to, first and foremost, support investments that consolidate the industrial capacity of Europe, reducing strategic dependency and securing our supply chains. We need to do this in full agreement with the internal market, loyal competition rules, and so on. We need strategic autonomy. And when it comes to governance, our amendments impose that the council responsibilities, the stakeholders, all of this needs to be based on clear predefined objective goals, and the original intermediaries need to have a clear role, clearly established.
Eligibility criteria, timelines for evaluation and reevaluation need to be put forward beforehand, and the competitivity label needs to be based on a transparent methodology and clear motivation for each label given out. And we would like to have a preference framework where we have full traceability of expenses and a correction mechanism when putting this forward will have an unexpected impact. When it comes to fiscal aspects, tax aspects, climate, and so on, we need to make sure that we serve general interests and not just the interests of a certain group or another. We have amendments put forward by several groups, and we have convergence points here. SMEs need to have a simplified experience.
We need to prevent the geographical overfocus and other details that need to be further discussed at a political level. And this could be a turning point for European industrial policy if we make sure that we respond to the expectations of the European citizens. Keeping this in mind and having an open approach, this is how we approach these things. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, madam chair. The European Competitiveness Fund aims to strengthen the competitiveness of the European Union as a whole. For that very reason, it is essential that it does not become a tool only for good member states that are already the strongest, but that is mobilized the potential of all member states. Experiences from previous programs are very instructive in this regard. For example, the Horizon Europe program clearly demonstrates the strong geographical concentration of fundings.
Since 2021, just five member states have received more EU funding for innovation projects than 15 countries classified as the widening countries combined. However, the single market cannot function optimally if a strategic investment flows only to a limited number of member states. Long-term concentration of capital creates economic imbalances that are just as problematic for market functioning as monopolistic position in the private sector. A strong Europe cannot stand on a few centers of growth, surrounded by peripheries. For this reason, I consider our call for the establishment of a fixed national allocation to be a legitimate and rational instrument.
This is not a redistribution, but a way to ensure equal conditions for participation. They allow all member states to engage in strategic value chains, participate in key investment, and contribute to the European competitiveness as a whole. Particular attention must also be paid to regions undergoing structural transformation, especially coal regions. These areas often host energy-intensive industries that remain the backbone of the European economy. Supporting this region is not a social expenditure or a gesture of solidarity.
It is an investment in preserving industrial capacity, skilled labor, and the union's strategic autonomy. European competitiveness cannot be maximized by concentrating resources in a few innovation hubs. The union, through trends, can only be achieved if it mobilizes its full economic, industrial, and human potential across all regions. If this fund is to be truly European, it must work for the whole of Europe, not only for its stronger parts. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And now for ECR, the shadow, mister Posnak is not there, but mister Cavedanya will replace him, please.
Speaker 10
Thank you, president, speaking on behalf of mister Posniak. That is the shadow rapporteur of this opinion. We have tabled several amendments to the report of the European Competitiveness Fund. These amendments are based on three main principles. First of all, we must reduce the bureaucratic and financial burden on companies.
Too often, in fact, the European businesses face excessive administrative requirements, complex rules and hikes costs coming from regulation, climate policy and the sector specific obligations. If we talk about competitiveness, the fund must help companies grow, not make their work more complicated. This is why our amendments aim to make the use of the fund simpler, more flexible, and easier to access for businesses. Second, special attention must be given to companies in the defense sector, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. These companies are often the main drivers of innovation, technology development, and industrial growth in Europe.
At the same time, they are the ones who face the biggest difficulties in accessing financing and new programs. If we are serious about Europe's strategic autonomy and security, we must make sure that SMEs in the defense sector can really benefit from European funds. Our amendments call for better access to funding, simpler rules, and fair competition for these companies. Third and last, the problem is not only in the amount of funding, but also in access to information. There are many EU programs and funds, but companies often do not know how to apply or they do not even know that these opportunities exist.
The Competitiveness Fund should therefore ensure not only financing, but also clear, simple, and easily available information, especially for small and medium enterprises. Colleagues, if we want Europe to be competitive globally, we must speak not only about goals, but about real tools that help companies grow, invest, and innovate. For this reason, we ask for your support of these amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Renew cannot be here. So for the Greens, I will replace my colleague Alexandra Giese who was stuck in traffic, and I'm reading her notes. Thank you, Rappacher, dear colleagues. We welcome the constructive engagement on the text and the amendments.
The changes our group has tabled to improve from an Imco perspective, the clarity, legal certainty, and coherence of the text. Alexandra Giese has three points. One is, when it comes to the strategic stakeholders board, investment committee, and advisory board, these boards cannot and should not be only composed of industry representatives. This is important for risk management, market efficiency, competitiveness, and good stewardship of public funds, even more in the case of the ECF, which will be a key component for steering European competitiveness until 2034. So industry participants may overlook risks and resilience gaps.
They need to prevent, capture, and preserve competition in a level playing field. Scientific rigor and long-term analysis need to be present in the boards. We, therefore, suggest in our amendments to bring in different expertise from different sectors and disciplines, as well as types of organizations covering public and private interests, and that also include the expertise and innovative technologies and business models. That's her first point. Her second point is that consumers and SMEs in the European Union must be able to communicate, transact, and innovate without being exposed to systemic vulnerabilities created by outside jurisdictions.
Strategic autonomy in the digital sphere is a precondition for democratic sovereignty. Alexandra's amendments explicitly aim to strengthen European tech sovereignty across the entire digital ecosystem, not only infrastructure, but also services, platforms, and applications. The EU's current dependency is not just an economic issue. Competition is not possible without democratic resilience and freedom from foreign interference and manipulation. The Green's amendments, therefore, clarify the digital leadership window that the ECF should support for strategic digital services and applications, not only physical infrastructure.
And second, clarify that we have to prioritize investment in European-owned and European-governed digital capacities across the value chain. Third and last, in order to strengthen the capacity for digital leadership, we have tabled amendments that support interoperability, open standards, open specifications, and open source solutions. These amendments are key to ensure that the ECF contributes to open ecosystems to reduce vendor lock-in, enhancing cybersecurity and fostering SME participation, and ultimately boost innovation capacity across the single market. And finally, we believe that we should not shy away from being very clear and specific when defining the objectives for the fund, also from institutional perspectives, and aim for a strong and ambitious parliament's position towards the inter-institutional negotiations with the commission and the council. So that was the green position by Alexandra Giese.
Is anybody wanting to come in from the left? I don't think so. Yes. And no? Then we have one more member who wanted to come in, so I give the floor to Mr. Stechowski.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you all reporter and cheerle reporter for your great work. I am very happy that here in the European Parliament, sometimes we have it, very good discussion and very concrete proposal what we can change. But for me, European competitiveness found as for the Czech member of European Parliament, what is very involved in the issue of what we are doing in European Parliament is opportunity to really bring much more Europe to the.
Speaker 2
Sorry. Sorry. I think something is wrong with the microphone. At least I cannot hear you. And probably the other colleagues can be a little bit quieter.
So either you go outside the room and talk, or you stay in and listen. Thank you. And probably you can try another microphone. I don't know.
Tomáš Zdechovský
I hope so it functions. No? No? I hope so that it no. Hungary doesn't like my speeches.
Here, colleagues. No. Really? You are joking. Here.
I have to go to the left side. So, okay. You see how they move me? Okay, colleagues. I would like to only say that it's very important to have it balanced with this fund, and really take note that Czech Republic is growing.
We are more and more qualified to be richer. And next MMF in 2035, if the current government doesn't, nothing change, we will be one of the most richest country in the European Union. And I hope so that this competitiveness found, we can use also not only for Western and Nordic countries, but also for the countries such as the Czech Republic, which are in transposition to be net payer to the European budget. Also, it's very important remarks. Thank you all, Micro, what our function here in this room, and I wish you a pleasant day.
Speaker 2
Thank you so much. That concludes the round of MEPs. And I quickly give the floor to the commission because we're running a little bit late to Agnieszka Skoneczna, Head of Unit Public Investment from DG Grow. Welcome.
Speaker 12
Dear chair, dear honorable members, thank you for the draft opinion of the INCO committee on the ECF proposal, notably to the rapporteur. We have listened carefully to all the interventions from the rapporteur and honorable members. And maybe three quick points to underline. First of all, we fully welcome your emphasis on small and medium enterprises and on much-needed simplification. This is the ambition that we have with the European Competitiveness Fund, a fund that, by design, is SME friendly, thanks to the consolidation of 14 programs into one single rule book with one single gateway where all the funding opportunities can be accessed and also with providing access to SMEs and all companies to project advisory that will help them deliver and build their projects for the competitiveness fund.
Speaker 13
At the same time, we will organize specific calls and dedicated actions for SMEs in strategic sectors across the four policy windows of the competitiveness fund. Secondly, we also very much welcome your emphasis on crowding in private capital. Yes, public capital will not be sufficient. Our ambition is to derisk and crowd in maximum capital from the private sector, thanks to the use of building on Invest EU instruments.
which
Speaker 13
will help us de-risk investment in strategic projects. And thirdly, also to underline that the European Competitiveness Fund will be built on supporting the best quality projects that contribute to European competitiveness based on quality, based on impact, and also on the effectiveness of EU funding so that we crowd in and co-finance as much as possible of private investment. Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you for the opinion.
Speaker 2
Thank you for being here and for commenting. That's very helpful indeed. And, Pablo, I don't know if you wanna come in as the rapporteur. Okay. Perfect.
Then just for you to be informed, the vote in IMCO is scheduled for May. So I wish everyone good luck with the file. This concludes agenda item seven, and we come to the voting session. I hope that everyone is here. But while we are still waiting for some members to come in, we could do a short test vote and see if everything is working.
Speaker 16
So I open the test vote. Thanks so much. So it seems like the test vote is functioning. No technical problems in the room. And I would say all the groups are here, more or less.
Speaker 2
Okay. Great. Then we can start with the vote on agenda item eight, the safety, resilience, and sustainability of space activities in the Union. We are voting on the draft opinion to have a report where ITRE is the lead committee, and our rapporteur for the opinion is mister Carrefour, who is still, I think, on the way. That's why Marc Angel will replace him at the beginning.
So some short remarks by the.
Yes.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. I will speak in French. Unfortunately,
My colleague, François Calphon, cannot be here because he's on his way from Paris. So today's vote is the first in our committee on the EU space policy, and it won't be the last. Following on from the Draghi report, the union has created through this regulation a single space market with harmonized rules, regulatory authorities, as well as privileged access to the internal market. My colleague would like to warmly thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive approach and the shared objectives to improve this text together. The compromise put to a vote today clarifies, simplifies and aligns authorization regimes and applicable operations that would be applicable to all European and third country operators.
Furthermore, when it comes to the use of non-compliant foreign technologies, have rules there as well. And this is something that will help improve European startups and make them European champions. It also reinforces European sovereignty in the space domain, as well as security linked to supply chains, public markets, and foreign direct investment. So on behalf of my colleague, I'd like to invite you to adopt these nine amendments as well as this opinion from our retail colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. A lot of enthusiasm in the room. And now we can proceed to the vote. We start with compromise one. By show of hands, who's in favor?
Who's against? Abstentions are adopted. We go to compromise 2. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Abstentions are adopted. Compromise three. Who is in favor? Who's against? Abstentions are adopted.
Compromise four, some pages along the line. Who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions are adopted. Compromise five on the same page.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions are adopted. We go to compromise six. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Abstentions are adopted. Compromise seven was in favor. Was against. Abstentions are adopted.
Compromise eight was in favor. Was against. Abstentions are adopted. Compromise nine. Who's in favor?
Speaker 15
Who's against? Abstentions are adopted. We go to the final vote by roll call. I open the vote. Okay.
Speaker 2
I close the vote. Adopted with a very thick majority. Congratulations to the rapporteur. We come to the next item. We vote on number nine, enforcement of the Digital Markets Act.
As you know, the committee had been negotiating a resolution and a question for an oral answer from the commission. And I will give, at the beginning, the floor to the DMA chair, Andreas Schwab, if you want.
Andreas Schwab
Well, I will be very short. I would like to thank all the colleagues that have been attending these meetings of the DMA working group. We want the DMA to be enforced even stronger on the basis of the existing law, and our resolution is a tool to push the Commission exactly in that direction. Thank you very much.
Speaker 15
That was very fast. Thank you so much. So it's only one vote. By roll call vote, I open the vote. I close the vote.
Speaker 2
Adopted also with an overwhelming majority. Congratulations, Andreas. Then we come to our last voting session. You know it already. It's a yearly exercise.
We're gonna vote on the 2027 budget, pilot projects, and preparatory actions. So after the projects are being voted, we're gonna submit this for the budget '27, and it will be basically transmitted to the commission for its pre-assessment, which should be then ready in June. And we're gonna vote on all of them individually, and thanks already to the members who handed in, who submitted pilot projects. We start with the first one by Pablo Arias Echeverria on the digital serenity for Europe, a democratic alternative to global platforms, Agora. It's all by a show of hands.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions are adopted. We go to the next one by Francois Caillefon. A toolbox for the development of local e-commerce.
Who is in favor? Was it against? Abstentions are adopted. Yes. Go to the next one by Cynthia Niemotzu addressing the urgent need to map, measure, and better understand the economic impact of the European crafts sector on the single market and EU competitiveness.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Abstentions clearly adopted. And then the last one by Santro Gossi, developing a digital product passport for the diamond sector. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Abstentions adopted. So, congratulations. All the preparatory projects are being adopted. And this brings us to our next agenda item, but we do a short break of 5 minutes, and then continue with our vice president of the commission, Stephane Sigione.
Speaker 18
I wish you a 5 minute break. Dear colleagues, welcome back after a tiny break following our voting session. As I announced, we have now the agenda item 11. It probably could be a little bit quieter. And everyone who doesn't wanna take part, probably better take your discussions outside the room.
Speaker 2
That also is true for the EPP in the first row. Pablo, thank you. We're gonna start. Sorry, but it's very loud. So, again, welcome to our dinner, item 11.
We have the structured dialogue. You know the yearly exercise with our commissioner, Mister Stephane Zijonier, European Commission Executive Vice President for Prosperity and Industrial Strategy, and, of course, also for the internal market. Stephane, we are very happy that you're here. I think we have a lot of topics to discuss. We first have an input of you and then two rounds of questions and answers by the members, yeah, from the single market road map to protecting the single market with the Industry Accelerator Act.
I think a lot of hot topics at the moment. We are very much looking forward to your input and the discussion. Floor is yours.
Thank.
Speaker 19
You, Madam Chair, dear Anna. Ladies and gentlemen, honorable members, I'm extremely happy to be back in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection today. There are, as the Chair has said, lots of topics that are of interest to us that will be vital points in a world marked by geopolitical instability, where power relations are tightening. And the rules of the economic game are sometimes undermined. Our response has to be a clear and ambitious one.
It must reaffirm the European spirit. It must define and defend our common interests to ensure our sovereignty and prosperity. And it's in that spirit that the commission puts the single market at the heart of our competitiveness strategy. Our industrial policy is structured around four main axes, strengthening the internal market to make it a lever for growth. And obviously, I'll come back to that, but our strategy is aimed at increasing growth and consolidating the internal market.
We also want to boost demand for our strategic industries through the Industrial Accelerator Act. Mobilizing public and private investment is important too, and that's what we'll be doing through the ECF. We want to diversify our partnerships to secure our value chains with our trade partners, to ensure that any money we spend is well spent and create security for our value chains. These four pillars of action are all equally important. The four need to be addressed at the same time, in the interests of consistency but also of cohesion, because all of them trade off against each other.
And we need to have collective agreement on all four if we are to adapt the European economic model to the new geopolitical challenges. However, in front of your committee, let me focus first on the internal market and our four pillars. Our single market is our most valuable asset, I would say. But as you know, it's still underused. And to turn it into a driver of competitiveness, we are acting on three fronts, which I will introduce to you.
First of all, simplification for better innovation. I'm not going to talk about the omnibuses to you. For me, in the context of the internal market, simplification is first and foremost harmonization. It's turning 27 sets of standards into one, one in, 27 out. It's therefore a matter of giving preference to regulations over directives to harmonize our rules and avoid distortions among ourselves.
And it means also adopting a think small first reflex. Each legislative proposal must genuinely incorporate a systematic assessment of its impact on SMEs. These will be the key principles of our public procurement reform too: simplification to create more transparency and to prevent corruption, but to create primarily a genuine single market for public procurement with a digital platform so that SMEs can seize previously unknown opportunities and act across borders. Because before, we had regional or national platforms, and we have to have a European one. Creating these business opportunities goes hand in hand with this direction for public procurement, which represents 15% of the European GDP.
And there, we will be introducing qualitative criteria. Simplification also means tackling fragmentation, and therefore barriers. We want to remove barriers to growth. Last May, we identified the terrible 10 major obstacles to the smooth functioning of the single market. Our strategy is a clear one.
These barriers need to be thoroughly dismantled. The commission has divided them into 28 specific cases. For example, the difficulties of setting up a business in another member state. We're looking at the constraints involved there linked to the administrative documentation required by the member states, the requirement to have a bank account in each country you operate in, the lack of interoperability of digital systems that are needed to exchange information. And then once we've looked at these constraints, what we do is use those to decide where further harmonization is required and regulation, therefore, at the European level or where changes are required at national level.
And I referred to this example of barrier number three of the terrible 10 quite deliberately because it perfectly illustrates the interaction between the necessary deepening of the European acquis on the one hand and action on national rules on the other hand, where we would need, obviously, counsel and ministers' support to get the results we want. Last week, we presented the 28th regime. That's going to address some of the single market shortcomings. But in order for it to be attractive, member states shouldn't be adding additional conditions to the system. We've tried to prevent gold plating by introducing a blacklist of banned practices, a kind of single-market clause.
And we're carrying out work on each of the barriers one at a time, together with the member states in a collective format, all 27 member states, and then also in a bilateral format with the member states to be as effective as possible. I also believe, madam chair, that parliament, and in particular this committee, very much have their part to play in this exercise in order to monitor the barriers and to hold the commission to account on the method that they're following, but also the member states to ensure that we have proper follow-up. As you know, one of the most critical aspects of the single market is the services sector. This is why we now need to finalize the e-declaration file, which will make it easier to have posting of workers and to better organize exchanges of information between the member states. We have to do that whilst allowing member states that welcome the most posted workers to have the information they need to carry out inspections, to avoid abuses.
And I know that this file is one where many MEPs are particularly committed to seeing progress, in particular the reporter Mr. Schwab. And I'm hoping we'll be seeing concrete progress over the next few weeks, because the next stages are going to be crucial. As will be the case for mobility, in September, we'll be presenting the fare mobility package led by Vice President Min Sartu. And that will have measures on the portability of skills, recognition of qualifications, and reduction of the regulated professions.
We're also working to facilitate mutual recognition in key sectors, such as business services. Now that implies a delicate balance linking the political cost of reforming national regulations with the potential for economic opportunities. And obviously, the work on barriers will also be accompanied by proposals to complete the single market in areas where it's incomplete, and where the harmonization effort has not yet taken place. I talked of the twenty-eighth regime earlier, whereby we'll be able to get registration of companies in 48 hours online in Europe with a minimum of cost and minimum of complexity. And then another thing we were working on this year will also be the Circular Economy Act.
We want to ensure that market surveillance is strengthened. We've got the product act for the circular economy act, as I said, to create a single market for waste, and to accelerate our transition to a sustainable economy. And we've also presented texts on how to develop energy interconnections, which are absolutely essential. And the geopolitical context makes it clear every day that this is vital for our strategic autonomy and to consolidate our markets. We also need to consolidate the telecoms market to ensure high-speed connectivity and to have continued innovation.
We need to mobilize private investment as well through the savings and investment union. All of these files are critical for us to deepen the single market, and therefore to identify avenues for growth. It's I think the fact that we can work together that means that we will be able to make progress on these files, which gives us huge potential for growth. That's been estimated at 3% of extra GDP in the EU if we do our duty together, collectively. But this is something that does not depend just on us.
It's also subject to international decisions taken. And crises may exist outside of Europe, but there are decisions we can take together as Europeans, as institutions, to make the situation better. It's not a question of business as usual at the moment. And we in Europe have to adapt to that, and we have to speed up reforms. The roadmap that was announced by President van der Leyen will respond to this imperative.
And the aim will be to propose to the co-legislators, probably in the form of an inter-institutional declaration, a list and a timetable of projects to be carried out by 2027. And the idea, as far as we're concerned, is to have the three institutions counsel the European Parliament and the Commission committing to achieve results with clearly defined deadlines, clearly determined rules. And for everyone to sign up to this commitment, we have to adopt a package approach and involve the highest possible political levels to make the internal market a top priority. So in conclusion, madam chair, honorable members, I'd like to tell you that all the commission's serious action is focused on the internal market today. When we strengthen customs in return for new partnerships in our trade agreements, we're acting to strengthen the single market.
When we seek to create lead markets through low carbon, through the Made in Europe labels, through the industrial accelerator, again, we are strengthening this new economic model that we want to focus on. So I am counting on you to guide what we do and, above all, to challenge the member states in order to defend the common good that is the single market. Thank you for your attention. I'm open to asking and answering questions.
Speaker 2
The executive vice president, as announced at the beginning, we have now two rounds, and we do it always in MCOO like a ping pong, so it's more interesting and we get more out of our questions. And we try, if we still have time at the end, to do a catch-the-eye. So if members wanna also come in for the catch the eye, can let us know, or basically, the secretariat. We start with the EPP, Pablo Arias Echeverria, and you have always two minutes and three minutes answer ideally.
Thank you very much, sir.
Speaker 21
Good morning, Vice President. Thank you for being here. Interesting times for the European Union. We've grown through the crises we've gone through. And this is probably the largest crisis facing us.
As such, it's a major opportunity for more single market, more Europe. We shouldn't forget, we've lost ground over the last years from 21% of GDP, world GDP to 15%. So clearly, we need the roadmap. And it's true, too, for 30 years, we've talked about the same things. We've put forward ideas and proposals, but then we come up against the terrible 10 that you mentioned, which we were aware of, but we hadn't put it black and white.
So for me, the most important is protecting the growth of the member states. If we manage to get that, if council will go along with the proposals you're putting forward, which parliament mostly agrees with, then I think we'll make a great deal of progress. And we have to applaud the timetable you're setting out for there to be a major agreement between the three institutions. Three brief points. Firstly, less regulation, better regulation.
Our companies, the only thing they see is more problems. And the EU, what solutions are there? That has to be turned on its head. I think the roadmap will help, and we need to work on that. Secondly, we need a genuine rather than a theoretical single market.
Again, lots of chat, lots of talk, but we need a walk now. And we need counsel to work together with the Commission and Parliament for that. Then twenty-eighth regime, that's an idea that this committee launched.
Speaker 21
Myself, as the head of the Intergroup on the digital single market, the twenty-eighth regime was just an idea or an ideal. But now, once again, we need counsel to decide once and for all whether it's going to be implemented. So what we need to do is work on that. And the question is, are we all prepared to do this? Or is it just the Commission and Parliament?
Speaker 19
And so it will be blah, blah, blah, but nothing at the end of the day is achieved. Thank you. I think probably it's better I speak in France rather than Español. The question for me really is a question of method and the political level. The single market for too long was a technical issue.
And in fact, since the major progress made on the single market, maybe it was considered to be something that was at a technical level, organized at a technical level by the administrations themselves, who often had very good arguments to do nothing. Plus, the national parliaments have also, in fact, often under the pressure of national industries, decided to erect barriers to protect their markets, their national markets to the detriment of the single market. And I think more or less, everyone would agree on that analysis. But now the question is, how do we move beyond this technical approach? How do we make this a political issue?
And how can mutual national parliaments also see the single market as a priority when they're legislating? I think trade agreements are a good argument. Sometimes tax incentives or indeed barriers are raised against imports, small packages. And all of this undermines the work of the single market. And as such, we need a response to that in order to consolidate the single market.
That's why we've completely changed the approach we adopted. And I've asked that a high-level single market czar be appointed by each member state or a Sherpa so that we've got a counterpoint who's got a certain amount of political clout and who can pass on how important the single market is to each set of ministers. My cabinet has already met. We are going to be working on setting out our objectives very shortly. And our idea is to get results from that at our first meeting, which are then fed back nationally.
The second stage, we're going to be working bilaterally. And I think in the commission, we should take the time to work bilaterally with the member states to remove the barriers and convince them to remove them. I did mention in my introduction, I think that the commission does have a role to play. I'm tempted to say as an influencer, if you like, over the member states, convincing them to adopt the road map and to work on the terrible 10 in the coming months and years. You said I had 3 minutes.
Speaker 2
Two minutes, I'm not sure. Thank you. Sorry. It's more of a guideline.
Speak so. We come to the S and D. Alex Agiosaliba, please.
Alex Agius Saliba
Thanks a lot, Chair, and dear Executive Vice President. First of all, allow me to make a few points on behalf of my political group, starting with the war in the Gulf. Besides, obviously, our thought with innocent people being caught up in the conflict, we have to prepare ourselves for how long this war will be affecting directly our economies, our citizens, and also our prosperity. A global energy crisis is obviously looming, and this will impact our industries that are already facing a lot of difficulties. And, ultimately, this will directly also raise energy bills and the cost of living for ordinary Europeans.
So my first question is, what are you preparing as commissioner responsible for prosperity to counter the adverse effects of this war? Are there EU emergency measures in the making? My second point, it's also a difficult time when it comes to the functioning of our EU internal market. Still, we are facing economic challenges for our industries. Therefore, we have to continue to underline the barriers that we are still facing when it comes to the internal market.
So my second question, how are things progressing with the single market roadmap and the competitiveness compass? Because we need to take urgent action. Is there any progress on taking away the terrible 10 in market barriers? What can you report as the follow-up on the informed your leaders retreat that we had at Alden BSN under the title one Europe, one market road map. Thanks a lot.
Thank.
Speaker 19
you. Maybe a couple of words on energy. That's a huge component of competitiveness. If I had to define the problems of European industry, I would talk about Asian overcapacity and to what extent we can, in fact, compete with products produced under different conditions and which are subsidized. And the second main problem would be the price of energy.
If we could manage to solve those two issues, then we would solve many of our competitiveness problems today in Europe. On energy, obviously, you've got short term issues, long term issues. I won't come back to those. But I think increasingly, international events make it quite clear that dependency on fuels such as gas will, in fact, see our market being made more volatile on a fairly regular basis. And as long as gas has to be incorporated into our production costs, then, obviously, that means that geopolitical instability is a problem for all of us.
I think we've had seven or eight oil shocks and gas shocks since the some time, and we've had three in the last few years. So geopolitical events may make it such that we will have more in the future. Short-term issues. The Emera regulation being activated could help to simplify the regulation that allows the commission to avoid a situation where member states raise other kinds of barriers on energy and create even more of a difference between member states when it comes to the energy costs. The regulation isn't up and running as things stand, but the commission is suggesting activating this mechanism so that within the single market, we will be able to guarantee the same rules for all and avoid protectionist behavior or behavior which could exacerbate the difference in energy prices from one country to another.
And then later on, we'll be having other solutions. I'm not going to touch on that now, later. But short-term contracts between suppliers and consumers, interconnections between grids. All of these are issues that I think we need to look at further. And I'm sure that other commissioner of Jorgensen will be happy to come and have a discussion on the things we're thinking about instituting over the next weeks and months.
Speaker 2
Don't see Clara Dostadova for Patriots and no one else, and I don't see Burton Muller for ECR and no one else. That means we are a little bit faster, and then we have more time for the other MEPs. We continue with Svenja Han for renewal. Thank.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much. And, Stephane, it's always a pleasure to have you back in the European Parliament, and thank you for being a very regular guest in our committee. This is really much appreciated. I mean, we already heard how much the world has changed in the last years. And for me and my group, it is really the agenda that we need to strengthen the European Union in all its regards.
Speaker 24
We can protect our values, our democracy, and our prosperity if we act firmly and fast. And you really have a huge amount of landmark legislation ahead of you, advancing the single market as a key to our success today. And we all know the incomplete single market is really one of our biggest homemade disadvantages. So I'm really thankful for you tackling those barriers. You already addressed them in your speech, for example, services.
Speaker 23
And I'm so tired that so many colleagues are still turning a blind eye to the problem of a unified lack of a unified market. For example, we are delivering here in this committee, the e declaration we worked on, for the posting of workers. It's a little step, but it's a step of simplifying the procedure. But even this small step, member states are blocking. The parliament is the force moving forward for a more single market.
But we have so many more barriers. You addressed quite a few of them. And I really want to ensure you that you have the full support from my group and I'm certain from the majority of this committee as well, because only with the true single market we have the competitiveness. I mean, I personally do not believe in state subsidies. Subsidies.
I think we need more affordable energy, lower taxes, and less regulation. The first two is member states' competence, but what we can deliver from Brussels is less regulation, and clearer framework. So I would love to hear a bit more from you about the road map for one single market that we learned about. Yes. I see the hammer coming.
And, if you have more ideas on how to tackle the national barriers from member states and how to maybe address their lack of willingness to actually do something and not only talk about it. Thank you.
Well,
Speaker 19
Thank you very much for a question that is part and parcel of the areas of the member states' competency. Yet at the same time, we benefit, we are dependent on the goodwill of the member states on that front. Nevertheless, our responsibility is called on collectively in the European institutions, especially in sectors which we're still building: telecom services, capital markets union. These are topics that fall to us collectively to make progress on, to make progress on the single market. And in a way, they're independent of national legislation at the moment.
Our will is to make rapid progress and, above all, to convince the three institutions to move expeditiously. I think the Capital Markets Union is especially interesting. We've got this single supervisor that the commission's putting forward to try to make headway on that step. At the moment, it was completely blocked just a few months ago, and now it's seen as a necessity and for progress. On the strategy for the single market, in reality, beyond the terrible 10 and the roadmap, we need to have a sectoral approach.
As I said, with a strategy that's gonna bring on board a sectoral approach for a number of subjects, those have strong economic potential, which are essential transitions as well. The digital and green are considered economic strategy as well. Services for businesses, industrial services, retail. All of these subjects, in reality, need progress to be made to help the single market. And with that backdrop, the commission is working on targeted legislative proposals, especially on the construction services and deliveries, to be able to help in a cross-border fashion and modernize rules that are in application. In parallel with that, we're still going to be working on this new method that I mentioned in political terms, where, obviously, the parliament will have a clear role to play in legislative terms.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much, dear executive vice-president. As Greens, we think that the single market can become our biggest strength against Trump's seas and putins of this world. And for us, this means a market that delivers for European businesses, for people, planet, and not entering a race on deregulation. First, we need to use demand as a policy tool, and we welcome the proposal for the Industrial Accelerator Act. We also believe that public money should systematically support clean, circular and European-made solutions and not the cheapest option at any cost.
Speaker 26
The current approach to green procurement has reached its limits, and we propose to make it mandatory to have at least one environmental criterion to be met by tenders. This gives the contracting authorities and bidders the necessary flexibility to make it easier to implement. So my first question is, will you support this approach to making green procurement mandatory in the upcoming proposal on public procurement? Secondly, strengthening the single market means reducing dependencies. The Circular Economy Act is essential to make our supply chains more resilient, and we need to make buying and selling secondhand products easier, with proportionate obligations and harmonized rules on producer responsibility.
Speaker 27
Can we count on your support to make sure that the second-hand sector is better supported in Europe? And thirdly, we must address our dependence on Big Tech. Keeping an important share of the €60,000,000,002 spent annually on U. S. Cloud services in Europe will strengthen our economy.
Speaker 25
We believe that we need a strong cloud sovereignty definition and a European preference for the procurement of cloud services under the Cloud and AI Development Act. So will the Industrial Accelerate Act be the blueprint for the Cloud and AI Development Act when it comes to procurement? And will it also target critical use cases in private procurement? Thank you.
Speaker 19
Well, thank you for those very precise three questions. Maybe to come back on the last one. We will be putting forward a text on digital sovereignty where Henrikonan will be the lead. The single market, the revision of the single market will allow us to have clear guidelines as overarching ideas, and the text will allow us to define more clearly. But you will be getting a formal communication of that, which is currently in the internal procedures in the Commission and will take into account your concerns.
On the circular economy, obviously, once again, that is a priority for certain industries to establish the conditions to encourage demand and to overcome the fragmentation in the single market on a number of areas such as waste and waste flows. This proposal also allows us to resolve and come up with solutions to have lead markets and to overcome distortions between member states on the definitions of products. And this fragmented single market we see at the moment for the circular economy with lots of different organizations involved, which are actually making things more complicated for firms and makes our policy less effective here. The figures speak for themselves. Circularity should be increasing, but we find ourselves in a situation where we've made 1% or 2% increases over five years, depending on which sector we're looking at, which obviously is not up to the task that we should be aiming at, and not what we've said earlier about our ambition.
Public procurement on environmental issues. This is set out very clearly in the impact assessment of what we want to achieve. I'll come back to you with some clear proposals. And I would expect from parliament, obviously, that we'd enter into a discussion, and the political groups would also help us to add value to the main sectors where this is concerned. On these main principles, I can cover those and other questions, but they're part and parcel of the package that we are putting forward.
Thank you very much. For the left, Luke Flanagan.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you, commissioner. Thanks for being here today. We haven't met before, but I have been in contact with your office about an ongoing issue in Ireland related to defective blocks. I've been working with homeowners for the last 5 years. We've had a petty mission.
We've had a report. We've had recommendations that there needed to be a paradigm shift in market surveillance in Ireland. And we finally felt like the issue was being heard in July 2020 when the commission announced infringement proceedings against Ireland. And they concerned alleged failure to conduct adequate market surveillance of construction products as required by the Construction Products Regulation. However, the latest reply that we've received from you would make my heart sink, and it says significant efforts to fulfill its market surveillance duties with regard to gardens to constructions products since 2021, that there have been significant efforts made.
Unfortunately, this claim doesn't make sense. Maybe on paper, the regulations were written into law in 2021 onwards. But as late as 2023, the head of market surveillance in Ireland said there was a national emergency, and complained about a lack of resources. Peer reviewed search was research was published last year, which I've sent you, confirming that pyrrhotite and internal sulphate attack, not just mica, are the primary causes of the failure, proving that Ireland's previous quarry audits were scientifically flawed. Given this, it would be highly problematic if he were to use these audits to justify saying that significant efforts had been made.
Look, I'd be delighted if this were actually happening. And to be perfectly honest, I don't if I did never have to talk about the construction products regulation ever again, it would suit me. But the reality is we have not seen a change. So after the initial letter of notice, Ireland was given time to respond. Are the commission going to issue a legal opinion?
Thousands of homes are affected. Joe Morgan has written to me in relation to one of the homeowners. This is the remainder of his house. Normally, when I come into a committee, I'm on the agri committee, people bring in potatoes, honey, etc., and they're proud of what's coming from their region. We need to meet with you to see if there are gonna be progress on this, and thanks for the time share.
But this is the remainder of an individual's house, and we know that this is continuing to happen, and we need to see something done about it. We really do, and I need an answer. Thank you very much. Well,
Speaker 19
Thank you very much. Well, I do understand this subject. I've heard from a number of your colleagues on market surveillance. The revision will allow us to overhaul some rules where there were shortcomings when it comes to monitoring, but also on products. It's not a question of products per se.
We can talk about that. You can look at the inspections done in 2024. 82 inspections for 1 million products. So you can say there are not enough controls, not enough surveillance, and that needs to be beefed up in the text. When it comes to the specific topic, this is related to the existing legislative text.
So it's up to the National Competent Authorities to provide a response, an urgent response. I know that individuals concerned are suffering here, but our responsibility at the European level is that this doesn't happen again. And to make sure that this doesn't happen again, I think we need to revise or review the Product Act, and make sure that some of our work will focus on market surveillance, on standardization and conceptualization, whether it be finished products or construction materials. And we will assume responsibility there. We can take that as a textbook example of what is to be avoided and what the European rules should be in place to avoid that we didn't have.
And in that perspective, I would encourage you to work together with the commission. And I think we'll be able to find solutions to avoid similar situations in Europe.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. No one here from the ESN. This concludes the first round. We go to the second round and come back to the EPP with Christian Dulichal, please. Micro ?
Yes. Have Fitsy Commission.
Speaker 29
Vice President of the Commission, thank you for being here, and thank you for entering into a conversation with us. So, a couple of topics I'd like to address. First, it would be on public procurement, and then on restrictions on territorial deliveries. First of all, on public procurement, you've already mentioned this, but when do you intend to have the draft directive on public contracts? And secondly, is it gonna be a directive or a regulation?
At least, what is the commission's view on this? I would urge you to look at this because in public procurement, what we need to concentrate on is simplification. Simplification. Simplification. Simplification.
And chiming with the question from the Green colleague, maybe I can just recall that this committee and the European Parliament as a whole has adopted an initiative report not to have binding social criteria established there, that there should be a degree of flexibility remaining. Just on my question then, how is the commission intending to deal with the criteria to give preferential treatment to European products in this directive or regulation without making public procurement as a whole too complex? Second question. An essential aspect of public procurement will be characterized by what is in the Industrial Accelerator Act. What will be left for the horizontal reform?
What will be left over? And just a question then on the restriction of territorial deliveries, how will the commission ensure that unfair practices in the TSC, for example, that is fragmenting the internal market and doesn't fall under competition law at the moment, be in future be prohibited? Well, I'll try and give you as an exact an answer as possible to a number of questions, but nevertheless, important. On the procurement directive, the idea here, and if you like, it's a horizontal approach, I might say, is, first of all, simplification, secondly, having as much transparency as possible with the bids that are published, establishing a European platform to publish those bids. Because today, I regret the fact that some of the public procurement market is not part of the single market.
Speaker 19
They're being published in regional publications, national publications, or even fee-paying publications. So the only way to get to the bid is by paying money. So in the single market, we're seeing that there's national protectionism at play. So my objective is to make sure an SME, whether they be in Spain or Portugal, in the Baltic countries, in Poland, in Greece, would be able to have the same information when there is a public procurement bid in Germany. And conversely, an SME in Germany should know if a bid is being opened in France, which is not the case today.
So digitization and the platform will allow us to increase transparency in the publication of bids and to bring about simplification in the procedures as well. Second point. The second point of this revision is whether it be a directive or a regulation that we need. And there's some quite clear directives going in opposite directions. I have to be clear on that.
Obviously, there's a wish to have just regulations. Yet when I tour the European capitals, everybody is saying, how can we not have a directive? So those are the contradictory noises we have that the commission has to deal with in this particular file. For example, it's not the only one, but it also shows you the difficulties that we're facing today in trying to address this and bring about simplification. On the criteria, the reality is if we're going to bring about more transparency, more accessibility to these bids, we have to exploit the treasures to be found in the sector, to use the market to generate demand.
So I think the trade-off that we're going to have to enter into today is to try and bring about more transparency and simplification, and more European nature to the bids, and use the public procurement as an industrial tool as well. Now if we can marry those two, then I think in a way we'll have won over the idea behind that in bringing about this reform. So we need to integrate the criteria. Obviously, in terms of political sensitivities, people have their own criteria, but there may be criteria that don't increase complexity and do achieve striking the balance. I spent a lot of time on public procurement, but it is important.
On territorial restrictions. This is a topic that is clearly included on the agenda of the European Council. It shows clearly once again that the member states consider this a political priority. We're in the process of drawing up some rapid answers and structural answers as well. That's rapid and structural, once again, there.
The tools that we have at our disposal, whether they're legislative or nonlegislative, can work hand in hand to provide rapid and structural answers without adding complexity into the mix. Because our objective is not to return to a model where we have to have monitoring of the public procurement market to avoid certain slippage coming in, which would add administrative burden and reporting, which would take a heavy toll on businesses. So we're looking at the overall approach with my team, and we're to come up with specific answers for the short term and indeed for the long term on that. I'll stop there. Thank.
Speaker 32
Thank you very much, Chen. Warmly welcome to you, Executive Vice President, Cisioner, here to the Internal Market Committee. Well, today, we talked very much about more general questions, the 10 issues on making the internal market better. But, what we haven't talked so much about is how we make sure that we are protected against unfair competition from, for instance, China, and I'm talking about products entering the single market that are not safe, that are not compliant with the rules we have on the single market. And as I understand it, you're responsible for the European Product Act coming up later this year.
Speaker 31
And yesterday, we in Imco had an exchange of views with AliExpress. And earlier on, some weeks ago, we also had an exchange of views with Sheen. And, they are saying that they are doing a lot, but we still cannot see anything when it comes to the packages entering the EU. They are unsafe. There's a lot of dangerous substances, etc., in them.
Speaker 30
So I would like to ask you, what can we do more in the product act coming up? We also see that inside the European Commission, this is spread over many different commissioners and DGs. And what we need is an internal market champion, leader. It could be you to take on this task and make sure that, with the European Product Act, in fact, it makes it illegal to make goods available on the single market unless they're complying with our goods, also when they come from online marketplaces. So, I would like you to take on that task, and I'm sure you will be able to do so.
What do you see? What can we do? Is the product act, the European product act, one of the places to solve this? Thank you.
Speaker 19
Thank you. The Product Act will allow consistency throughout the chain from the conception of the product via conformity with our rules, with the checks that need to be carried out. And I would say that it's the second phase after customs. Customs dealing with the external aspects of the market. But once a product is in Europe, there needs to be controls and surveillance of the internal market.
And that's the second antibody, if you like, against problematic products, and protecting consumers. And there are three, well, I'd say three main things at stake here. Standardization, which is part and parcel of that, which at the moment is going too slowly. It takes about eight years on average to standardize our products, which having standardization improves controls, etc., and better leadership, in fact, on the international stage for our products. We also need to update the legislation looking at the circular economy and digital. These are incredibly important subjects, which in reality didn't really exist back when the legislation on market surveillance was drafted.
So we need to modernize our legislative tools to enable dimensions to be brought in, which were nowhere near as important back when the legislators, the co-legislators adopted these rules. And then market surveillance, because we don't have enough controls. I mentioned inspections on finished products, which are not as blanket as they need to be, where we need to have an increase in the number of controls. So those three things at stake in this particular text that should be covered: modernization, improvement in efficiency, and in reality, the commission is proposing is making sure that the second level of defense after the customs is bolstered. So controlling those products once they're in the internal market.
If we achieve that, then I think we'll have achieved what the consumers and companies are looking for and indeed expect of us, to have more efficiency, to have more simplification and less naivety maybe in terms of the circularity of products within the single market and more Europe. Because this Europe, this text is fundamentally pro-European, and I think it should be seen as such. So I think we need to work on trying to improve, in tandem with you, what we're trying to do.
Speaker 33
Hello, commissioner. Very nice to see you, and I appreciate very much your presentation and your proposal. I think you are on the right track. Just a comment saying that, probably you are waiting for your colleagues' measures and proposals to complement this. You've mentioned the capital markets or things which are absolutely needed for the success of your proposals.
Talking about the success of the proposal, do you have a prognosis? When do you think the results will be seen in an increased competitiveness of European sectors or industry the moment this will enter into force? Because in the short term, we hear some voices saying there are some risks to mitigate. And I don't know if you are already thinking of these potential risks. I'm thinking, for example, of the automotive sector.
We're saying that the localization requirements might increase the costs. The increase of cost is a problem, and there are some sectors more affected than others. Then there are the trade agreements. There are global industries with supply chains which are already fragile, and these changes might create an effect, a negative effect at the beginning. So mitigation of risk, and when can we see the first results?
And a word on the European Product Act. I would like to ask you if you have a thought about how far liability should be extended to online platforms. Because I fear that the big international players would be able to respond better than EU online platforms. So I fear where is the good equilibrium to be found so that we do not negatively impact our own EU online platforms. That's all.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 19
Well, thank you very much. On that last question, our feeling or even our conviction in the commission is that we need to increase the responsibility. My colleague, Mr. McGrath and Ms. Vikraman, Vice President, will be continuing their work on that.
Obviously, all of the problems that crop up in the framework of this product act could be covered to allow consumers and our single market to work better, to have better controls and checks, better market surveillance at one and the same time of those platforms, obviously. I'm not going to go into more detail about the precise measures, because we're still working on those. But my colleagues are fully aware of this issue and are in the process of working on it. On progress and sectoral plans, maybe I could just say once again that we wanted to change the method here and change the perception maybe as well by looking at the industrial sector. We had a very horizontal approach before, and what we wanted is to have a more sectoral approach, a sector by sector approach, sectors that are facing difficulties, but also those that aren't in difficulty, where we need to work on competitiveness.
So we have cars, aluminum, steel, chemicals, all of these industries which are subject to the two criteria I mentioned before: Asian overcapacity, price of energy. So we want to make progress on permitting, simplification, and helping them to develop. And that we've done sector by sector because there are rules which differ, which are complex in each sector, and all the rules. And the fact of having a sectoral approach on these files will allow us to see in clarity the rules that are there, the difficulties we see throughout the supply and value chains, and the complexity of trade flows and unfair competition as well that may be at play in those sectors. We've put forward sectoral plans as of the start of the year.
These are being implemented regularly in the text that you see here in Parliament, either through the omnibus or through legislation. But we're talking about business plans more than regulation, in a way. So we built these together with the sector. We put them together with the workers, with the employers, and the value chains. What I want to see is rapid implementation and entry into force of these plans to establish a number of new initiatives focused around sectors where competitiveness is doing well, where the competition conditions in place, like aerospace, aeronautic industries, are doing well.
But nevertheless, you still got to have that vertical vision across the whole sector where they're active. So reacting quickly, implementing plans. It's a piecemeal approach that we have to do. We have to approach it like that in all the text that you have. But the general overview has been given the green light on that.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Naban from PFE ECR. And then we come to renew Nicolas Minscheff.
Speaker 36
Thank you very much, madam chair. Dear Executive Vice President, first of all, thank you for being here with us today. My intervention concerns the territorial supply constraints, which were already mentioned by some colleagues before me and identified as one of the terrible 10 obstacles in the single market strategy. These constraints have a direct impact on many European consumers. Not only do they cost billions of euros every year, but they also undermine citizens' trust and confidence in the single market.
Speaker 34
How can we explain this to our citizens when it clearly goes against the rules meant to ensure fairness and free circulation of goods across the EU? I know we share this same objective of ensuring that European citizens fully benefit from a well-functioning single market without being penalized by such constraints. So consumer organizations have already called for a legislative proposal explicitly banning territorial constraints. I shared the view that we must be ambitious and deliver a real solution that directly tackles this challenge and makes a real difference for our citizens. And so I want to encourage you to prioritize this matter and be bold in proposing effective solutions.
Speaker 38
First of all, I would like to thank you for your work on this issue, but I would be very interested to hear your perspective on how we can tackle this, the terrible member of the Terrible 10 swiftly and effectively. Would the
Thank.
Speaker 19
thank you very much. Now what I would like to do, what the commission would like to do, is to attack the unfair trade practices on the market. And I'd like to reiterate here that this subject is something that is very important for us. We're looking at all possibilities to tackle this. Sometimes you have practices that producers engage in.
Sometimes it's the distributors. But there's one thing that we're trying to avoid, and something that I would discard immediately is to end up with proposals that make us regulate shampoo prices. It's a caricature. That's true. But, I think at the end of the day, we have to ensure that our proposals do not create regulated markets in all production sectors, on all products.
We need to be targeted. We need to attack the real difficulties, and we have to address the real unfair trade practices within the single market, the ones that are leading to real issues. We're also open to all possible possibilities within a single market strategy. We've taken an open approach here when it comes to legislative or nonlegislative approaches. We're still discussing these, but we're open to working with all MEPs on these topics to find the best solutions.
Once again, we have to target our approach. We have to target the problems and not end up in a situation where we have secondary effects, where we're regulating the price of shampoo or cosmetics, because that would just lead to massive difficulties. And I think, in a way, it would sidestep the priorities that we've actually set out for ourselves, be it for producers, distributors, or consumers. That's not what they're expecting from us on these issues. So it's about taking a measured approach, a targeted approach to defining the problem well, having a consensus among us between the commission, council, and parliament.
What is the problem? What do we want to solve? And what would be the most effective tool in finding these solutions. So I would say let's continue with this exercise. Let's keep taking this approach and see what we need to change in terms of practices.
Thank.
Delara Burkhardt
Thank you very much, chair, commissioner. We've often talked about the current uncertainty and geopolitical situation, and you said that we as the EU need to take common action. And often in discussions, I hear about how we still have these instrument silos from the nineties, and you're talking about deregulation and that in a way, that you're coming up with a very different sort of approach, and that's become very clear. And you can be assured that we will be very active and engaged in this approach. If we want to increase our sovereignty, we want to have our scope for action, then that's what we need.
When we're talking about the Circular Economy Act, it plays a key role here. It would help us to decrease our dependency, especially in terms of resources. In the European Union, in recent years, we've made progress. For example, the right to repair, the minimum rates for recycled plastic content, textile regulation. But sometimes our approach was very piecemeal.
And sometimes in different member states, things were implemented in very different ways. And as a result, we have a major gap in the single market in some of these approaches. At the moment, we are wasting valuable resources. We are importing raw materials, which are a burden on our producers and consumers. And so we have to find a way out of the situation.
This is important for resource-intensive industries, SMEs, social enterprises. And as you said, the economy is very important for the commission, but we often don't come up with solutions. So we have two follow-up questions. Firstly, what does the European Commission think regarding the dramatic crises when it comes to recycling as well as the secondhand market and social companies there? And then, my second question, what role ideally should public procurement play when it comes to strengthening the circular economy?
Thank you.
Well,
Speaker 19
Touching a bit on topics that I included in my introductory remarks as well. But when we're talking about the circular economy, this remains a lever for growth. It's essential in many sectors. For example, when we're talking about critical raw materials, that's part of our sovereignty, of our independence, and this will come from circularity and reusing the critical raw materials that are already part of our economy. 100% of our supply comes from China, and now we have to keep the raw material that is in Europe in Europe.
That's a key challenge. Thereafter, we have other tools that are available to us as well. This would be our capacity to ensure that we have increased producer responsibility, harmonization of criteria when it comes to waste regulation, very specifically simplification of European rules. All of this is something we need to work on in parallel to, on one hand, reconcile the economic demands, independence, and sovereignty, as well as our environmental challenges. So I think that all of these three phases need to work hand in hand to consolidate our position.
I'm also thinking about the trade rules that we need to implement to avoid scrap aluminum, scrap magnesium, for example. Actually, these are resources that leave from Europe. They should be part of our reflections. What are the trade rules and trade tools that we can use to avoid these resources leaving Europe? How can we find a way to use ways that sometimes just languish in Asia, in Bangladesh, in Indonesia, for example? How can they be redirected to feed growth in Europe?
In this framework, we can't just talk about the export of certain products quite simply. We have to reorganize our sectors. And I think we will look at it from a competition approach as well. When we look at our trade partners and we see how they might tax finished products, but forget somehow to tax scrap and especially circular products. Well, it's because there's an economic challenge at play there as well.
It's not, it's not a coincidence that the US is always looking to scrap tariffs on scrap aluminum, that black mass is being dealt with in a circular fashion in Asia itself. So these are topics that we have to look into. We have to move from product responsibility to European harmonization, one in, 27 out. So that's something that we have to also implement here. We have to look at the waste strategy.
We have to talk about the circular strategy that we want to implement. And it's only by aligning with all of these different criteria, by taking a circular economy approach, by integrating all of these components, all of these approaches that we will make circularity a reality, but we have to provide the resources for this as well.
Speaker 2
Then I only have one catty eye. That's me, but I can be super fast, unless anybody else wants to come in. But I think all of you spoke. I just wanted to, again, congratulate you for the Industry Accelerator Act proposal because I think the single market is not only about, you know, creating and harmonizing the single market, but also for increasing internal demand and also for protecting the single market vis-à-vis unfair competition, for example, against China. And I just want to know your personal opinion.
Do you personally think it is more effective if we have a made in Europe approach vis a vis the made with your, like, made with Europe approach that is now in the proposal? And can you elaborate on the pros and cons? And I just wanna say also, now mister Dorschel has left, but while there is no clear call for mandatory green procurement in the parliament resolution on public procurement, there are, of course, a lot of proposals how to make sure we can use public procurement in a more strategic way to also foster green products. Just that there's no misunderstanding here, but I think you also have it on your radar. I just want to clarify this a little bit.
Back to you. And you can probably also combine it with your concluding remarks.
Thank.
Speaker 19
you. On the accelerator, as you, I'm sure, have understood, this is a text where we have to strike a balance with the entire college of commissioners. We have to ensure collegiality in this proposal, and I will defend this proposal here and in another fora as the commission proposal, which I think is quite balanced. I think it's also important for a number of sectors. And nonetheless, it still allows us to deal with our trusted partners within existing value chains without disrupting them, while at the same time maintaining global trade relations with partners with whom we have an FTA.
And that's all integrated in this proposal. The list about whether including countries in a list or taking them off a list, this was a choice that was taken within the Commission. We've also taken into account reciprocity criteria vis a vis our partners that would allow us to also engage in discussions with our partners. The fact that we have opened our public markets in Europe, that's fine. But we also want our partners to do the same in the spirit of reciprocity, to open their public markets to Europe as well.
An example that I use often, but I think one that works for all of our trade partners across the world, everyone have an all of our partners have a national preference clause for public markets, be it at local or national level. And if Europe is considered European, we should have a situation where European companies operating in these countries should be considered as national companies. So with this text, and I think we can consider this text as an opportunity to launch certain discussions on the lack of symmetry that might exist with our partners on issues like public markets, and it will allow the European Commission perhaps in the coming months and years to continue these discussions in parallel with the parliamentary discussions on this text, because this would help us to further open markets. I'm thinking about Canada, the US. There are different protectionist measures that are put in place in other territories, and so we have made in Europe.
Speaker 2
One more person, and then we can have the concluding remarks. Andreas Schwab.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you so much, Chairwoman. I would like to come back to what the Executive Vice President has been saying on the principle of reciprocity. I mean it's an old discussion that we had for a very long time. And I think we do follow the basic logic that we cannot accept that our participants of the markets are partly neglected, whilst we integrate everyone. But I had yesterday a very interesting discussion with some people from the German Ministry of Economy.
And I mean, what they are referring to is the fact that the people that choose the operators if there is a tender. It's not university professors who have an awful lot of time. It's functionaries of a normal category, and they have to go through this tack. And if it's too complicated to assess where the product is coming from, then it gets very complicated. So I think we should also have an answer on this technical challenge, how to make it.
If the commission is preparing a list of all the critical sectors with what can be bought and what cannot be bought, we can ask these functionaries to go through this and to check. But if it's a general assessment, if the computer is made China-made or Europe-made, it's very complicated because there are several elements in it, and it would go beyond the pay grade of these persons that decide to ask them to look for this reciprocity reflection. Maybe you can make a comment on this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 19
We have agreements on public markets with about 40 countries, and about half of these agreements are asymmetrical. We don't have reciprocity. And in fact, it's unfavorable towards the EU in this lack of reciprocity. So clearly, there's margin for manoeuvre. We have diplomatic and trade discussions that could feed in here.
And we have to make progress here in terms of opening markets. And the best way, I think, to create an incentive for our partners to create a bit more opening in their markets is saying that they would be considered as European if ours are considered national on their end. So using the AI, text, sorry, the Industrial Accelerator Act as a lever, really, to open these discussions. And I think that when it comes to trade and economic discussions, I think the US is using a certain language, and perhaps the EU can use methodologies of a similar nature to defend its interests as well. It's not just about defending our economic interests abroad.
So my recommendation would be that this text also be used as leverage. And for this to happen, we need to have a goal. We need to have a list. We need to have criteria. We need reciprocity as one of the preconditions.
And then I think it's a great opportunity for our company also to gain market share abroad. So it's this co-creation approach with our partners. It's not just about aggressive, offensive approaches, but it's about a fair approach. It's about increasing and creating greater fairness with our partners for our companies. Now it's about taking a broader definition of what is produced in Europe that would help us here.
Then, in terms of simplification of methodology on the text, for the first time, we have taken the safe declaration. We've done away with all reporting that was envisaged within the definition. We have our a posteriori controls rather than our a priori controls, and this is a massive change. And it could definitely inspire us in our upcoming regulatory proposals at the EU level in the spirit of simplification. Because when we're talking about the Industrial Accelerator Act, there's no red tape.
There's no administrative burden by definition because controls and certification are automatically carried out by companies and are post posteriori in terms of surveillance. In terms of the marketplace as well, we can look at all the different criteria and definitions for strategic components, for example, that was a targeted approach. This was a list that already existed. This is what we've integrated, and this text is much more complex when it comes to implementation as compared to the Industrial Accelerator Act. So I'm relatively confident that when it comes to administrative complexity here, we've put in place all the elements to ensure that companies will be able to make the self-declaration, and we will have post checks rather than pre checks.
And I think that this text could be a benchmark for future text and future revisions as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2
So I had basically, again, Luke Flanagan. And because we still have five minutes, I give the floor back to you, but then we have to finish.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much, and thanks for your answer earlier, commissioner. And you mentioned about better regulation. And when I was younger, if I still had food on my plate and I asked for more food from my mother she'd say, well you eat what you have first and I apply the same attitude to the construction products regulation and to market surveillance regulations. Of course you can always improve them, but I think we need to use what we currently have there, and I don't think that's happening. And we have information and we have been looking for meetings, and I got elected here initially as a skeptic, and I have to say the openness of the commission in DG Agri and all the different DGs has changed my mind because people had been listened to, and I wouldn't like to see a situation where I had to go back to my constituents and say, well, I can't actually say that anymore, and in particular when it comes to a situation, and I'll show it again.
This is the remainder of someone's house, and we know this is going to happen again if the audits that she had been given are listened to. So I'll ask here, we need a meeting with your officials and the people who have looked into this, geologists, engineers, experts in this area, and experts whose houses have fallen down in the past because of this. We need a meeting and, just that we'd get a guarantee of a meeting, so we can talk about this further because obviously in this forum, you're limited on time even though we have an excellent chair. You've done your best to give me ample time, but it will be good to talk about this in detail, not just here today.
Speaker 19
I would say it again that we are in touch with the Irish authorities, and we're also looking to see what changes need to be made in terms of market surveillance, what improvements are required. And please believe me, we're doing both. Because if both processes reach safe harbor, we will be able to assure Europeans that these sorts of disasters will not reoccur. And secondly, we'll also be able to provide a response to those who have unfortunately had this experience. So I commit to pushing for quicker action and to make sure that both administrations collaborate to find solutions that are, in fact, acceptable, implementable.
Thank you.
Speaker 19
So.
If I have the chairs giving me back the floor, gladly. But perhaps to just come back to my introduction. The four axes that I mentioned are intrinsically linked. We need free trade agreements. We need to create the economic growth conditions in our single market.
We need investment. So the competitiveness fund and that proposal that goes together with applied research, scale-ups, the derisking tools, InvestEU, our capacities to use these tools, all of this is very important. At the same time, we have to talk about protecting certain strategic sectors like automotive, chemicals, and clean tech. All of this is essential if we want to maintain our strategic autonomy. So I think I'll stop there.
But if we attack these four axes together, we'll be able to transform our model. But if we look at these pillars individually, I know that there are some MEPs, some member states who don't love free trade agreements. Some don't want a single market convergence. Some don't like the European preference. But I think we have to look at all four together to provide responses to Europeans given the geopolitical situation.
If we don't find a pragmatic balance between the four, we will lose out either on strategic sectors, on investment, on the internal market, or the growth and prosperity condition. They will just not be enough for our people. My file is prosperity, and so it's my job to ensure that growth actually occurs, that quality of life in Europe is maintained, that our model remains stable, that we have rule of law, predictable rules. So if we want to keep all of this, if we want to continue to build on this, and that's our objective, of course, I think we have to attack all four together. I think this is a goal that we share with the European Parliament.
And the inter-institutional agreement, I think, is a good idea to create an obligation vis-à-vis results when it comes to these different topics in the coming months and years. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Merci, Voucou. Thank you so much. Dear Stephane, dear executive vice president, for being here with us, answering with such patience to all of our questions. Thanks to all the colleagues who came in. And, of course, you're always welcome here.
We're looking forward to the next exchange with you. Also, probably when some of the proposals are getting published, you can also always present them here in the committee. You're very welcome to do that. This concludes agenda item 11. We now have our coordinators' meetings.
This is in camera, so everyone who's not a coordinator can leave the room, and the info committee meeting resumes in the afternoon. Thank you so much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.