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 sittingsSpeaker 3
So that was very, very interesting, and we have decided to follow-up on that as well. Then the last part, the final part of the mission brought us to the Atacama large millimeter array, the ALMA, one of the world's most powerful radio telescopes. So that was also very impressive. Again, European Union is heavily engaged in running this radio telescope. We learned a lot as regards how important, you know, these telescopes are for basic research and international cooperation.
We went to a lithium operation site, Albe Male, we've also discussed the strategic role of the lithium for batteries, the risks of price volatility, and the challenges Europe faces in building stronger value chains and domestic industrial capacity. So summarizing, it was a really tough program which we had, you know, from, well, coming from Europe, you know, flying in for more than 24 hours and then, you know, going from the South of Chile to the North and having, you know, one meeting after the other. But it was very insightful, very, we got a lot of really good input for our political work over here. And as I again, I think it's more than obvious that Chile is a key partner for Europe in science, in clean energy, and in critical raw materials. And I think, I can only recommend whenever we have a chance to go there again, and to also, you know, enter into political talks.
We had not so many political talks because, you know, they had elections just a couple of weeks ago. So, you know, everything was in change. You know, the outgoing government and incoming government, not yet everything was established. But, you know, seeing how this country is open to a close cooperation with the European Union, that was really, really, very important for us. And I can only say it was a great trip.
And once again, let me finish by thanking you, Hugo, for doing such an excellent job. Thanks a lot.
One minute.
Speaker 7
One minute. Yes. I just wanted to, on my behalf and on behalf of the Greens, thank very much our excellent delegation leader, Angelika, for doing a splendid job and the secretariat also for preparing. And it was indeed a very full but also extremely interesting program that we had. And we learned a lot.
We had very interesting connections with civil society, not the least, and I appreciate that we will follow up on that. But also seeing the challenges of some of these activities, I think it was also very inspirational. And I think it's very important for our political work that we actually get to see on the ground what's happening with our trade partners, and how we can be really sustainable partners. So thanks to everyone that participated and made this really, I really think it was very valuable. So thank you to everyone.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. Thanks for all those people who took part in this mission. Thank you. Thanks to our secretariat for preparing everything. And we are moving to item 10, safety, resilience, and sustainability of space activities in the union, and consideration of draft report.
So we have about 55 minutes for this discussion for the Space Act. And first, the rapporteur, the vice chair Donatson, will present the draft report for the minutes. After all, I will invite the shadows to take the floor. Two minutes. We will then continue with catch the eye, one minute each.
I will also invite the reporters to take two opinion-giving committees to comment. I invite all members who want to take the floor to put their nameplates vertically in their holders. We've also got the representatives of the commission. So if I hope that time permits also to give the floor to the commission. So please, Elena, the floor is yours.
Speaker 8
Thank you, chair. Dear colleagues, the space act represents a fundamental step for the future of the European space policy. For the first time, the union is keeping itself with a common regulatory framework, with the ambition to strengthen security, resilience, and sustainability, but also, and above all, to build a true single market for space. This is a necessary objective. Today, the European regulatory landscape is fragmented.
Speaker 9
Several member states have adopted the national legislation with different procedures, requirements, and timelines. This situation creates legal uncertainty and operational obstacles for operators working at a European scale. However, we must be clear. Creating a single market does not mean creating a single bureaucracy. Harmonization must not translate into increased complexity.
Speaker 8
On the contrary, it must simplify. The concept of simplification has resonated strongly in recent months, given the calls from various stakeholders to make this text simpler and less bureaucratic. The text I have presented is now 35% shorter than the commission proposal, beyond the numbers. I have worked on the substance to make this text more operator-friendly and supportive of the single market. Some point, a more streamlined governance, respecting national prerogatives and avoiding the risk of double authorization while facilitating mutual recognition of authorizations, a reduction of the time required to obtain authorization, a simplification of cyber pillar, including the removal of the Lex Specialis alignment in terms of security with international standards and existing practices already familiar to space operators.
Europe is not starting from scratch. Well-established standards already exist, developed over time, also thanks to the experience of the European Space Agency and national authorities. The new regulation must build on this foundation, not duplicate it. A general simplification of the sustainability chapter, which risked becoming the most burdensome for our companies, by reducing administrative burdens and aligning environmental assessment with existing frameworks. Sustainability must be concrete, measurable, and technically feasible.
If well designed, it can become a driver of innovation for Europe. If vague or excessively bureaucratic, it risks becoming a cost without real benefit. And at least for simplification, a clear separation of responsibilities between national agencies, EUSPA, and the Commission in order to avoid conflicts of competence that would harm the entire space ecosystem. The second major issue I have focused on is competitiveness. This is and must primarily be a proposal that boosts the competitiveness of our sector.
For this reason, I consider it essential to introduce accompanying measures to support our operators in complying with the regulation. Just as I believe it will be necessary to reflect on how to link the SpaceX to the competitiveness fund. Our industry remains competitive if it is able to properly value the historical and economic relationships that have always characterized it. On one hand, I believe it is important to ensure a fair and flexible equivalence regime, even on specific chapters that recognizes like-minded countries as strategic partners for our industry. Partial alignment does not mean granting concessions to third countries. Rather, it allows for greater flexibility in ensuring equivalence only in certain areas, without undermining the international competitiveness of the European industry.
On the other hand, I believe it is equally important to start considering a fair and balanced European preference in the space sector. This should not translate into a sort of protectionism, but rather into strengthening, starting from existing collaboration, a competitive drive within the sector. Finally, a crucial element concerns the transformation of the European space ecosystem. We are no longer dealing with a sector dominated exclusively by large institutional players. Today, SMEs, mid-caps, and research centers represent the real engine of innovation.
They are not mere suppliers. They design, test, and operate a space mission. Applying a uniform regulatory model to all would be a mistake. It will risk penalizing precisely these dynamic sectors, which represent the future of the sector. Obligations must be proportionate to the level of risk and the nature of the activity.
For this reason, it is essential to provide a simplified regime for certain categories of operators. High standards must be maintained for the safety of all, but compliance mechanisms must be calibrated so as not to discourage market entry, experimentation, and growth. An overly rigid regulatory framework risks slowing down technological progress. The Space Act, it is a necessary step, but its success will depend on its ability to be an enabling tool, not an obstacle. Simplification, proportionality, and coherence must be the guiding principles.
At the end, I would like to thank the commission for its proposal and its continuous support throughout this process. The co-legislature in the council, all shadow rapporteurs and opinion rapporteurs, and the ITRE committee secretary for their support, and my staff above all. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Elena. And now the floor is for the reporters. So on behalf of EPP, Missus Angelika Nibler. Two minutes.
Speaker 5
Thank you, chairman, and thank you, first of all, to Elena Donasson, our rapporteur for her really excellent draft. Thanks to you and your whole team. It was an intensive work which had already been undertaken with all the hundreds of amendments that are on the table right now. We want Europe's space sector to be on equal terms with that of the United States, China, and Russia. This requires a level playing field and a legal framework with the lowest possible barriers.
We want to streamline and simplify the European Space Act and put the focus on three central aspects. First of all, I think it's important to strengthen Europe's industry and support the new space sector. Secondly, we have to go for competitiveness through common rules. And thirdly, we have to keep the right balance between innovation, security, and environmental protection. And every my our EPP main points, I all find them in the draft report of our rapporteur.
So, coming to our first point, strengthening Europe's industry and support for the new space sector. Let me stress that I think that the European Space Act should apply to all actors offering services in Europe, but I also would like to stress that it's not a one-way street. We all know that today, Europe is dependent on third-country operators. But for tomorrow, we must create a legal framework that ensures mutual equivalence and fair market access on reciprocal terms. So I think that's important to also look ahead.
The innovative momentum lies in the new space sector, and therefore, the European Space Act must support start-ups and SMEs through a regular tier regulatory light regime, particularly benefiting small businesses, mid-caps, research institutions and universities that had already been addressed in the draft report of the commission and from my dear colleague, Elena Donassan, but we will also bring in amendments with regard to that. Second point, competitiveness through common rules. The main objective is to go for harmonization and less bureaucracy. I think, as stressed, we have to end the fragmentation of national regulations, and the standard should be as much as necessary but as little as possible. We will also propose simplifying the authorization process through a single authorization for space activity.
Speaker 3
So this is a reference to article 6. I think we have to go for tailoring to the mission. We advocate a risk-based assessment and categories to adapt authorization approval procedures, enabling fast-track processes and reducing unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. And I think it's important that we do not reinvent the wheel again, so don't duplicate what is already in practice, workable. Finally, keeping the right balance between innovation, security, and environmental protection, I think that we should promote the reduction of space debris and the development of sustainable technologies, both essential for security, for safety in orbit, and traffic management.
We do not support too restrictive or too impractical environmental rules that would burden our companies. I think this would be the wrong approach. And we see a need to strengthen capacities within our industry through lower reporting obligations, and through specific transition periods for SMEs and startups. I think that's very important that the new space sector is really going to have a chance to stay in Europe and, to do business in Europe. That's from the EPP side.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 10
Thank you, chair. First, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadows for the exchanges we had so far. I would like to highlight a few points that I will reflect in my amendments. I consider the commission's proposal positive. This regulation must represent a tool to prevent fragmentation of our internal market with 13 national laws already in place and more on the way, making the life of operators easier within the new union.
Moreover, this regulatory framework can act as a lever to ensure that third-country operators offering services in our market do so under our conditions, ensuring a level playing field for our operators. At the same time, I shouldn't hinder the continuity of existing cooperations or obstruct the EU access to end the use of space considering that we are not fully independent in this sector. The space sector is not used to be regulated at the EU level. The existing frameworks of reference are at national or international level or established at the intergovernmental level like the European Space Agency. The major preoccupation by the industry is, thus, the need to rely on existing and well-known standards and methodologies.
This is why I will propose that the commission takes duly into account those existing standards or directly relies on them. In general, the volume of secondary legislation envisaged by the regulation is considerable. This creates uncertainty for the operators who will need to implement it. That is why I believe that both implementing and delegated acts will need to be ready at least one year before the entry into application of the regulation. Moreover, I will propose to establish an industry board that, in cooperation with EUSPA, will contribute to the technical assignments for the preparation of such delegated and implemented acts.
Then we will propose to adapt the chapter related to resilience, link the space sector to the NIS two and the chair directives that will need to be supplemented by technical and sectoral requirements for all space operators. On the equivalence decision, the commission is empowered to adopt decisions recognizing third country regulatory frameworks as equivalent to the ones established by the Space Act. My idea is to keep this provision, supplementing it with a new condition of mutual recognition. On the environmental pillar, the commission is empowered to produce a methodology for calculating the environmental footprint of space activities. This point is considered controversial by the industry already applying the ESA life-cycle assessment methodology.
For this reason, my proposal is to ask the commission to ensure consistency and complementarity to such methodology. Regarding the regulation ability to support the sector, the section on capacity building refers to the need to finance the sector's objective without specifying the resources through which this will be achieved. In my amendments, I will strengthen this section and create a clear link with the competitiveness fund. Thank you, and I look forward to our negotiation.
Speaker 11
Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll take the floor on behalf of Mister Gjork, our shuttle reporter. Well, first of all, allow me to thank our reporter, Graziano.
And, well, first, the European new space sector SMEs start-ups make up some needs a real reduction in administrative burdens. We will propose targeted measures, including latter regimes and specific support. Second, competitiveness must be at the core of this proposal. We cannot risk putting our companies at a disadvantage in the global market. And this requires further simplification, especially in the environmental sustainability chapter.
And third, the framework should remain pragmatic and coherent rather than creating new concept that we should build on existing industrial standards and best practices. Member states' competencies must be fully respected, particularly in areas such as authorization, supervision, and national security. And finally, the regulation must remain adaptable to a fast-evolving sector. We will propose a mechanism to ensure regular reviews of its impact on competitiveness. We will table our amendments shortly, and look forward to working together on this file.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 12
You, chair. I'm going to speak French. Thank you, Elena, for this draft and for the very important work it represents. There are, in various areas, a real effort for simplification. And I think we all have the same objective here, to have a European space law that works well for our European companies.
Speaker 13
But I do have to be clear. In terms of the content, I think that your text is far from an essential priority that should be central to this regulation, and that is building a real single market for space in Europe. In Europe, we have 13 national space laws, and other countries are seeing administrative, legal, and economic fragmentation that is very significant. They have to deal with different rules, different procedures, different interpretations. They don't need European legislation that further organizes this fragmentation.
Speaker 12
They need a single, legible, predictable, and applicable framework throughout the Union. That's why I don't really follow your approach that weakens mutual recognition, keeps overly broad national margins, and leaves various national points, and that leaves things more unfavorable, more supple for third countries, both politically and economically. This is very difficult to champion. For example, I don't know how an Italian, French, or Czech company, how we could tell them that their Indian or American competitors won't have to respect the same standards to access the same European market. For me, the principle should be simple.
The same rules for all in the European market. There's also a real concern on another point in various areas. This desire for simplification really is a lowering of ambition. It might be necessary to simplify a text, but simplifying doesn't mean getting rid of.
Speaker 12
Useful safeguards or a more national approach. If sometimes this leads to a weakening. There are two other subjects, one on orbit security. The space environment is increasingly congested. This is a risk.
And so it's not the time to weaken the common rules or the framework. Then on the environment, I really am concerned about the reduced ambition here. I don't think that the original text had very strong ambitions on pollution. It was just proposing to measure them. And so in response to this, in the name of renewing our table certain amendments, we want to be clear.
We want to build a real European market with a single framework for all, a common framework to get rid of any fragmentation, and support standards rather than reinventing the wheel where there are solid measures in place. Yes to simplification, yes to a more operational, legible text, but no to an approach that overly simplifies or nationalizes the sector and weakens ambitions. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Thank you. Thanks so much, and thank you, Rapporteur, for all the work. This is a substantial amount of work, and we are thrilled to have the results now. Now we will have to discuss them. This is not a regulation for regulation's sake.
I think we all agree. There are clear goals. Our and my personal goal is, number one, to strengthen European space sovereignty. We should not be overdependent on others, especially third countries. Number two is support for the European space industry.
And that means, and the colleague from the renew just mentioned it, Mister Gudler, market obstacles should be reduced. This is about a common market as much as possible, and it is about securing sustainability rules. In specific terms, it means a level playing field for space operators. Our own space operators, the European ones, cannot be treated worse than third country operators. We see that there is still potential for this unfair treatment, and this should not happen.
Single authorization to launch across the Union. One country's authorization should be universal for all countries in perspective and a longer perspective, and we want to recital on this. We want a Europeanized USPA authorization that would make life easier for everyone. Light regime, very good idea, but we should be careful about the loopholes. I don't want big industries to found SMEs that would then have a light regime even though a big industry is behind them.
Launches derogation, well, we think it must be very clear that if there are launch capacities that are European, they must be used. And only in exceptional situations and exceptional cause cases, we want to go abroad. Support for MSCs, great idea. For that, we propose a space sector support desk, hosted by USPA, that would support SMEs in their application and reporting obligations. Cybersecurity, we should streamline it and use much more the needs to obligations rather than having it double in this law.
Sustainability obligations, we support the commission's idea. This is a very good chapter from our perspective. But we should also add one more dimension, develop a plan to reduce the impacts, the environmental impacts by 01/01/2030. Unions' climate neutral objectives are there. Equivalence decision.
It sounds good in theory, but I don't think it's in our interest to open our market if other markets are not as open as ours. So we want a reciprocal clear reciprocal principle for our space industry. And finally, it's about the deadline. We want a phasing-in period. We want certain obligations and certain regulations to start being valid on 02/28 and 02/29.
Otherwise, we are late if we only introduce everything in 2030. We don't have much time, dear colleagues. We need to start acting and implementing as soon as possible. Thank you very much. I'm looking forward to our productive negotiations.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Sergei. And now on behalf of the left, Miss Marina Massour. Thank.
Speaker 15
You, chair. Thank you, reporter, for the work you've done. First, I'd like to express my deep concern as to the approach you're taking. First, by lightening our obligations on mega-constellations, we're sending out the wrong signal. We're saying that Europe is erased in front of major giants such as SpaceX.
And this is a real problem. Next, the text weakens our environmental ambitions. And yet, as we know, we're facing a systemic threat of orbital congestion and increasing space debris. And so rolling back on our legislative framework is a strategic error and a potentially dangerous one in the long term. The increasing use of equivalence mechanisms, as presented in this report, may dilute our standards rather than consolidate a robust European framework.
And we need to build this framework because otherwise, we're jeopardizing our ability to construct and conserve our own standards based on the very exacting. What we would suggest is very different from what has been proposed. We first proposed to delete the mechanism for equivalence and replace them with cooperation and mutual recognition agreements for reciprocity, and to ensure that standards are met. We also seek to end deregulation by strictly eliminating any exemptions. We also propose to ring-fence space security through strict rules and accountability.
This doesn't only mean limiting uncontrolled orbital objects, that limit access and keep them for specific purposes. For us, it's very simple. Space is a common area, and its use must serve collective needs, use for knowledge. We should have a single approach, but it should not be first come, first served. We also need to preserve the civil and peaceful nature of our space approach.
In conclusion, after months of preparatory work and field work and all sorts of enriching meetings, we believe that it's very simple: we need to build a strong and independent European industry when it comes to space, but it remains to be seen if we're just going to be spectators of this race to space or if we're going to help build an exacting, lasting, and autonomous space industry. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Out. And now I've got one CAT DI person, and this is Missus Sophie Erickson. And then I will give the floor to our colleagues from the two committees for their opinion. So please, now the floor is your one.
Oh, so the is now? Yeah.
Speaker 18
I'd like to send a small warning message to colleagues because this is going to be an advertising. In northern scarcely populated areas, we have wide landscapes spreading out thousands of kilometers, dark skies, no inhabited areas. It's poetic, isn't it? It does give unique preconditions for space activities. And this is where far above the Arctic Circle that we have a range.
This is Europe's portal to space. And I've noticed that a great number of colleagues here don't know about this. This is the EU's only space base, first to send satellites into space and first to use recycled rockets. We have not only infrastructure, we have research, businesses, all these skills gathered in one place. And I think we need to continue to build on our strengths on our own continent.
What happens when sea lanes are closed, when we no longer have access to space bases outside European territory? It became very clear in Ukraine when Elon Musk took control of satellite communications and used that to pressure Ukraine. Many colleagues have stated today that our dependence is a problem. We cannot afford to be dependent on the world's richest, baddie on the other side of the Atlantic. We have to be able to stand on our own two feet in space as well.
Speaker 17
The road to that will start in the municipality of Kiruna in the North of Sweden. Thank you.
Yeah.
Borys Budka
We've got Missus Alessandra Moretti from Envy and Mister Calphone from Imco. Two minutes each.
Speaker 20
Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thank you, the rapporteur, Elena Dorazan. It's my pleasure to present to the ITRE committee on behalf of SND rapporteur, Pre Francesco Maran, the outcome of MV's opinion on Space Act. First of all, I would like to warmly thank the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation throughout these months of work.
Speaker 19
The opinion reflects a strong and balanced compromise supported by the progressive forces and adopted by a large majority in the envy committee. As you know, the EU Space Act aims to create a single market for space activities while ensuring safety, resilience, and sustainability. From an envy perspective, our focus has been clear. We must ensure that the growth of the European space sector goes hand in hand with strong environmental safeguards. In this regard, MV has strengthened the proposal in several key areas.
First, we reinforced provisions on the environmental footprint of space activities. Second, we improved the rules on space debris and end-of-life management of satellites, which are essential to prevent long-term environmental damage, both in orbit and on earth. Third, we worked on strengthening liability and sustainability requirements, ensuring that operators take greater responsibility for the impacts of their activities. Overall, MV adopted 12 compromise amendments supported by a broad political majority, demonstrating that environmental ambition and industrial development can go together. This file is about the future of Europe in space, but also about our responsibility to ensure that space remains safe, sustainable, and accessible for future generations.
We look forward to continue this constructive cooperation with ITRE in the next stages. Thank you.
Speaker 21
You, chair. I'm going to speak in French here. I'm going to deliver the opinion of Imco. We are proposing to go from 13 national laws to a single law. Two things that have emerged here in this room.
I'm pleased to say that we have come to a compromise. I'm going to talk to you a bit about this. We can reach a compromise between these two alternative visions. We aim to clarify and align authorizations between third countries and the member states through a simple principle. All operators that sell services in the union market must abide by the same rules regardless of nationality.
This will prevent member states from being treated less well than third countries. There must be a strict time limit for the equivalence, it is going to be three years. We aim to limit exemptions for third countries only in cases where this will be essential to deliver government or community programs. Finally, we aim to create a one-stop shop to support small and medium enterprises. For us, competitiveness is very important and should be highlighted.
I would observe that there are two almost opposing opinions. One, for a protectivist integrated market to create an environment that is favorable to investment while reducing Europe's dependency on foreign powers and given to this very Europe this Eurocentric vision. There's another one in your report for an open market with a space law that doesn't have any real regulatory ambition, and it leaves our industry at the mercy of American appetites in particular. Here, I am convinced that the work that you are carrying out here will lead to an ambitious space law that will guarantee our sovereignty by bringing these two, apparently opposing visions together. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thanks for this opinion. And now I will give the floor to Miss Susana Mazanova, head of the space single market unit at DG. That is two minutes, please.
Speaker 22
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for inviting the commission to this very important meeting today. My director, Catherine Cavada, is unfortunately not available today, so I'm also representing her. Let me start by extending our gratitude to the ETHRE rapporteur, Miss Donat Sun, for her work and for the excellent cooperation that we had, between us, within our teams on this file. We are aware of the time that the rapporteur invested in comprehensive consultations, listening very carefully to the industry and to the SMEs. Also, we had several meetings with the parliament's teams at the staff level to clarify our proposal, and we are very thankful for those.
This legislative proposal is absolutely worth all this intense preparatory work because our aim is to ensure the long-term sustainability of space activities. And today, your committee has again demonstrated its strong support for a competitive, innovative, and resilient space ecosystem. Our space industry requires scale and fast access to domestic and export markets, a single market for space. And we need the EU Space Act to establish the right conditions for such a single market. The EU Space Act is the first European regulatory answer to the complex challenges that we face in space.
On one hand, the safety, resilience, and sustainability of our space activities, and on the other hand, the regulatory divergence within the union, as it was mentioned by a number of speakers, with more and more national regulations appearing each year at the level of the member states. The commission has made a deliberate choice for a regulatory approach that comprehensively tackles all these challenges for a stable, predictable, and competitive business environment, for transparency and level playing field. The essence is a common set of technical rules revolving around three pillars: safety, resilience, and environmental sustainability. This comprehensive three-pillar approach is the only way to ensure a level playing field to address our vulnerabilities. So far, throughout the legislative process, the commission has offered full support to the co-legislators to shape this proposal.
Looking at the draft report and your interventions today, the European Parliament's engagement is really instrumental for advancing this proposal. We are looking forward to the amendments and your upcoming discussions, and you can rely on the commission services to provide you with all the support you deem necessary because making use of SpaceX a success is essential for both our competitiveness and for our global standing. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now, this is the time for our dear chair and reporter. So, Elena, the floor is yours for all these remarks. Please summarize and give your opinion, please.
Speaker 8
Oh, thank you, Chair. Just a few words. Thanks all the shadow for your for their opinion. And it will be a very strong work that we have made in the next month. So nothing to add now, but good job to everybody.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. So we finished our item 10, and the deadline for amendment is 26 March at 5PM. So now we will have a short break, and item 11 will start at 11:15. Okay. Dear colleagues, take your seats, and we immediately start our item 11.
And, it will be a consideration of the draft report. So please stop your talks, and we will give the floor we've got for this debate thirty minutes, so please remember the given time. And we will start with the rapporteur, mister Sienkiewicz, and he will present a draft report for four minutes. After, I will invite the shadows to take the floor two minutes each, and then there will be the catch the eye procedure. One minute.
And if anyone wants to take part in discussions, so please let me know. And, please stick to the time. So that now the floor is for our rapporteur.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you very much, dear chair, dear colleagues. Good afternoon to all. Before turning to the draft report, I want to mention that last week, I have invited the shadow rapporteurs and commission representatives to join me on the fact-finding mission to Ygnalina Nuclear Power Plant. It was a very informative visit. I want to truly thank everyone who contributed in organizing the mission, but also those who could join.
This program is about the EU delivering on its commitment to solidarity with Lithuania. Just a short reminder that Lithuania was required to shut down Ygnalina nuclear power Plant as a condition of EU membership. The reactors, similar to but much more powerful than those at Chernobyl, posed a safety risk for the whole of Europe. It was not an easy decision because at its peak, Ignalina supplied 88% of Lithuania's electricity. And for many years after closure, Lithuania was still heavily dependent on electricity imports.
So the decision was taken in Europe's collective interest. In return, the EU made a binding commitment to provide adequate financial support. Discontinuing it would, of course, undermine the union's credibility. So I therefore welcome the commission's proposal for the next MFF period. The aim of my draft is to strengthen it, particularly in light of new geopolitical reactors.
So first on funding, the commission proposes €678,000,000 for the period of 2028, 2034, which I support. However, the legal text describes this envelope as indicative. A term absent from all previous program regulations. This is not a technicality. Funding uncertainty is not just a budgetary concern.
It is a nuclear safety concern. So my amendments remove the word indicative throughout, and ensure full delivery of the agreed allocation. Secondly, on the workforce reductions. The commission's proposal requires a reduction of at least one-third of the decommissioning workforce linked to the planned outsourcing of reactor shaft dismantling. That's going to be the biggest, probably part, the most difficult one.
I propose to delete this requirement. Committing to major workforce cuts before outsourcing is successfully secured creates a serious operational risk. The program's objective should be safety and efficiency, not workforce targets imposed as a precondition. Finally, on anti-drone protection. Nuclear facilities are increasingly targets of deliberate attack.
In February 2025, a drone strike caused nearly irreparable damage to the Chernobyl Sarcophagus. Over €2,000,000,000 of investments, including EU taxpayers' money, effectively destroyed. And I propose to include anti-drone protection within the program's eligibility activities to safeguard the population, the environment, and the union's own long-term investments on this side. On technological sovereignty, the program generates unique expertise in decommissioning Soviet-era reactors. My amendments established that knowledge generated under the program should primarily strengthen union, industrial, and technological capacity.
Any sharing beyond the union must be subject to safeguards protecting our security interest. On the geological repository, the commission explicitly excludes deep geological repository costs from the program's scope. I propose to remove this exclusion. Lithuania closed Ignalina prematurely before it could accumulate the necessary funds for final disposal. Dear colleagues, I look forward to hearing from my shadow colleagues, from those who will speak at the Catch the Eye, and from the commission as well.
Once again, thank you very much for the opportunity.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now it's time for our shadows. So, mister Paulius Soudargas from EPP.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues. I agree with most of the points raised in this draft report, which correctly frames the program as a vital expression of union solidarity. Having recently conducted a site visit, I can reaffirm that the Yngnalina decommissioning is a technological mega-project of an unprecedented nature and scale. My thanks to the organizers of the visit, Rapporteur, as well as the staff of Ultra state enterprise in Nalina nuclear power plant who are putting all the effort to successfully complete this mega project of Lithuania. Witnessing the complexity of the first of a kind dismantling of the RBMK 1,500 reactor cores, the most powerful of their kind, illustrates why this remains a shared European responsibility.
Speaker 26
Here are my main remarks. Legal certainty of funding is paramount. As the decommissioning moves into the critical phase of dismantling the reactor cores, any funding uncertainty poses a severe nuclear safety risk. Defining a stable budget ensures that the union fulfills its commitment to provide adequate financial assistance for this exceptional financial burden, particularly in light of the extremely limited own resources available, which account for less than 1% of the program's total expenditure and are generated solely through the sale of metal scrap and the organization of excursions. While we must ensure that the core dismantling work is never interrupted for safety reasons, we should maintain a framework where funding could be revised in the future based on comprehensive implementation reports, to account for evolving risks and technical challenges.
Speaker 25
Furthermore, we must broaden the scope of this regulation to account for the resilience and security of the site. As a frontline member state with nearly 900 kilometers border with Russia and Belarus, Lithuania faces volatile geopolitical and security environment. Any security breach could have catastrophic radiological consequences for the entire Union. Thus, addressing potential security threats benefits the EU as a whole, not only Lithuania. The program should therefore support measures aimed at strengthening preparedness, risk awareness, and prevention capacities in order to reduce the likelihood and potential impact of such threats. Finally, the importance of the dismantling work itself cannot be overstated.
To succeed, we must keep the workforce to a maximum. Committing to rigid staff cuts before the complex first-of-a-kind outsourcing of reactor core dismantling is secured creates unnecessary operational risk. Efficiency should be achieved through enhanced organization, innovation, and productivity gains, not by raising the loss of the specialized know-how and skilled personnel essential for managing this unprecedented scale of work. Therefore, to ensure the safe delivery of this complex project, I believe upskilling and reskilling of the existing workforce is necessary. I look forward to constructive cooperation with the Rapporteur and all colleagues to deliver a strong and balanced final report. Thank you.
Eero Heinäluoma
Thank you, chair. And may I also start by thanking our operator, Mister Sinkiewicz, for the good work on the draft report. This initiative is really an important one, not only for Lithuania, but also for the whole European Union. The safe decommissioning of the Ignalina plant will decrease the level of radiological hazard for workers, the public and the environment in Lithuania and in the European Union as a whole. And of course, this is the reason that my group, S and D Group, supports the inclusion of this financing programme in the new MMF proposal.
We can also support the budget proposed by the Commission and keep the Lithuanian co-financing rate at 14%. It's important that there is also a national interest and ownership of the initiative. I'm planning to table just a few targeted amendments, mainly focusing on the following topics. Highlighting the importance of ensuring worker safety and the safety of the general public and the environment throughout the decommissioning activities. Enhancing transparency on how the money is spent, good planning, cost-effective budgeting, and monitoring of progress are key aspects for enhancing accountability and public trust.
And also, there is a need to look at the synergy with other MFF projects. And finally, I believe this program could be a driver for nuclear skills and knowledge dissemination, especially linked to aspects such as strategic planning, nuclear safety, decommissioning, and based management. Sharing efficiently the knowledge acquired from this complex decommissioning activity is important to ensure the EU added value of the program. And hopefully, the new knowledge can be helpful and beneficial for other member states also. And I would also like to mention that I welcome Robert's emphasis on strengthening the union's technological sovereignty.
I believe we can find synonyms between the general aims of this program and the strengthening of our technological excellence, knowledge, and sovereignty. May I once more thank the Rapporteur, and I'm also ready for good cooperation so far.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And Mister Andre Knutec. Oh, I'm sorry. He's replaced by Thomas Kubin from BFE.
Speaker 28
Exactly, chair. Thank you very much. On behalf of our shadow reporter, mister Knutik, I would like first to thank the reporter for his great work. Some remarks from my colleague. The program for the commissioning of the Ignalin nuclear power plant in Lithonia is important and appropriate.
It was established to provide Lithonia with financial and technical assistance in the decommissioning of this facility. This is a long-term project that must receive support for safety and for further reasons. In this regard, I would like to highlight the following points. When decommissioning the nuclear power plants, safety and cost effectiveness must be the top priorities. Focus should be as well on adhering to the principles of efficiency, monitoring of objectives using performance indicators, and sound reporting as described in the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the union and in other EU texts.
In this context, I would it will also be worthwhile for the commission in the interest of transparency to outline the financial requirements for continuing this program more clearly in order to ensure broad public acceptance of it. Precisely, such a program requires sufficient budget to ensure the professional and safe commissioning of the nuclear facility. I would like to mention another aspect here. The commission rightly explains that this program is also about gathering knowledge and experience. Exactly.
It is also about preserving knowledge and experience with a view to the further development of safe and modern nuclear technology. For this sector has been somewhat neglected in the EU in recent years and had also been fiercely opposed for, let's say, ideological reasons. The nuclear industry must be supported once again to guarantee a safe, environmentally friendly, and affordable energy mix in Europe, independent of Russia and so on. And to the extent that this is possible and sensible, materials from IGNALINA should also be recycled with this in mind. Overall, I support the continuation of this program, but I will table several amendments that address the points I have just raised.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And on behalf of ECR, Miss Maria Theresa Vivaldini.
Speaker 30
You, chair, colleagues. Well, the decommissioning of Ichnalina is not just costly, but it's also a focal issue for the nuclear security of our continent. Lithuania has 5,500 tonnes of spent fuel, and that is a cost of €6,500,000,000 for definitive decommissioning. But do we want to simply handle this situation? Or do we want to turn it into an opportunity?
Through reprocessing, this spent fuel could be a resource, and it could actually reduce the radioactive waste, and we can generate new energy. From this point of view, a cost is turned into an investment for the future, a clean future energy source. It's not just a technical choice. It's a strategic vision. We need to use the existing nuclear resources, reduce imports of uranium, and clearly have more European independence from an energy point of view.
It's a basis, a solid basis, which could be enriched by looking at the potential of this spent fuel. We need to take this into account. And at the same time, we need to look at feasibility studies, reprocessing, and the reuse of nuclear materials also in the case of these new generation nuclear reactors. So don't just manage the future. Let's build the don't just manage the past, but also gather fruit for the future.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
This is the end of our shadows. And now this is a catch-the-eye procedure, but I can't see anyone who wants to take the floor. So I will give the floor to Miss Charlotte Grefforts, head of the unit, DG Ener, for two minutes. So please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 31
Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning to all. I would like to start by thanking the European Parliament and the Committee for Industry, Research and Energy and, of course, rapporteur, mister Sindke Vitsiewicz, for today's exchange and the excellent work on this file. So from the commission side, we acknowledge the support we just heard from the honorable members and for the commission proposal to continue the co-financing for the IGNALINA program. And I would also like to welcome the honorable member's recent visit to Lithuania last week, where you could witness firsthand the program's progress and milestones achieved. It is of utmost importance that the EU financial support for ensuring the immediate dismantling strategy in Lithuania is firmly pursued.
Speaker 32
Timely financing is crucial to preventing delays or any potential discontinuation of the process. In addressing the first of a kind challenge presented by the dismantling of the Ignalina reactor graphite cores, which are the same type as Chernobyl reactors but larger in size, effective and efficient use of EU funds is vital. This includes the emphasis on nuclear safety and safeguarding the health of workers and the public throughout the decommissioning process. Consequently, the commission has proposed a regulation focusing on the use of the allocated EU budget on decommissioning core activities. The proposed regulation also introduces objectives to maximize the EU added value through knowledge sharing and dissemination, while further encouraging progress towards a timely completion of the decommissioning activities.
Speaker 31
Given the program's long history, I would like to remind the committee of the significant benefits brought by the 2014 program refocusing of its scope. At that time, the decision was taken to discontinue co-financing via the IGNALINE program of activities which were not strictly related to decommissioning in order to optimize resources. And thanks to this approach, we can now report significant achievements in enhancing nuclear safety at the site. Notably, all spent fuels from the reactor building have been successfully removed and safely stored in a modern dedicated facility. I can confidently assure you that DGN's supervision of the program will remain steadfast, as we aim to initiate works on the most critical phase of the project, the dismantling of the Igna Lina reactor graphite cores.
Speaker 32
We are really grateful for your timely engagement in assessing the importance of the Igna Lina program and for your substantive contributions, and we look forward to the next stages of finalization within the European Parliament and subsequently in the council. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Okay. Thank you very much. And before I will give the floor to our reporter, I just remind that the deadline for amendments is 26 March at noon. So now, mister Sienkiewicz, for the final remarks.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Yes. Thank you very much, dear chair. Dear colleagues, many thanks to all of you across the political groups for your support and for your ideas. Just a short remark, my aim as a rapporteur is to keep this report tightly focused on the decommissioning program only. So we have the duty to ensure that Europeans can be confident that their money is invested with the clear purpose.
But I look forward to, of course, a constructive negotiation process. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thank you. Thanks to all of you, of shadows and, of course, the reporters. Thanks for being with us, the representatives of the Commission. And now I close item 11, and we'll have a short break. And we'll start item 12 at quarter to 12 noon.
Speaker 33
Hi, dear colleagues. We still are waiting for our rapporteur. She's coming. So sorry for the short delay, and we start as soon as possible when Sophie is with us. K.
Borys Budka
So, we are continuing our morning session. This is the last item before we have the lunch break. So, we'll have more than 30 minutes for this item, and I immediately give the floor to our rapporteur, Softy Wilmas from Renew, and then to our shadows. And then cut the eye. So if someone wants to take the floor, just let me know by your name plate.
Speaker 34
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, dear colleague. Good morning. I will give you a brief summary of the draft report that I adopted on this proposed council regulation establishing an instrument for nuclear safety cooperation and decommissioning for the period 2834, and merging also the current instruments in the field of nuclear safety cooperation and decommissioning into one instrument with an external and internal component. So to start, overall, I strongly support the objective of this instrument, both the external component objective to strengthen nuclear safety in partner countries and the internal component's goal to support the decommissioning of the commission's nuclear installation at the joint research center sites.
So let's speak about the external component first. In my draft report, I seek to clarify and strengthen the promotion of international conventions to the external component of the instrument. I want to encourage indeed partners' countries to accede to these conventions through annual evaluation of their commitment to accede to this convention. I believe IAI assisted peer review could be an objective tool to assess national nuclear safety frameworks, and to inform union programming and prior to prioritization. I further emphasized the need for coordination with international organizations pursuing similar objectives.
In particular, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency to ensure accordance with international standards, but also to avoid any duplication of actions and funding in relation to those third countries. I also make amendments to reinforce transparency and public information requirements, including towards the European Parliament, which should be informed regularly about this activity implemented under the regulation. I also specifically added a requirement for cooperating third countries to ensure transparency on nuclear safety measures supported by the instrument, and on nuclear safety standards in general. Such information should be made available to the public and, in particular, local authorities, worker population, and stakeholders near the installation. Moreover, very important to me, as you know, regarding emerging technologies such as SMR.
The commission introduced the possibility to support them in the recital. I'm not against it. On the contrary, but I want to introduce a safeguard to ensure that union funding does not support the licenses process for competing new non-European technologies in partner countries by requiring that funding decision takes the European interest and the competitiveness of the union into account. So if we are looking now at the internal component of the instrument, I asked the commission in my report to proactively propose and develop innovative legal and financial instruments capable of addressing the complex long-term uncertainties associated with the potential transfer of the nuclear liabilities of the Joint Research Center to member states. The objective is to ensure that there is more clarity on how concretely the commission envisaged these transfers.
I believe that it would also help getting the member states on board. More horizontally, when we are talking about the draft report, my amendments also promote coherence and synergies between the different policies of the union, including research and training programs, which should be, I believe, specifically mentioned in the text as it supports research in the field of nuclear safety. Finally, as the two instruments merge, it indeed gives the commission financial flexibility. Therefore, I believe governments should be strengthened. I clarified in my draft report that the scope of the committee assisting the commission should include the assessment of compliance with the instrument's two general objectives, not only the external one, but also the internal one.
It should also consider the union's strategic priorities and interests. Thank you again, dear chair and colleague. I look forward to a fruitful exchange with you today, and I'm happy to answer questions.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Sophie. And now Matti Tonin on behalf of the EPP. Two minutes.
Speaker 35
Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues. As an EPP shadow reporter, I would like to thank first reporter, missus Sophie Williams, for her solid and constructive work. In particular, I welcome the emphasis on greater transparency and regular information to the European Parliament, the reinforcement of international cooperation and alignment with the key conventions and IAEA, and the focus on avoiding duplication through better coordination with international partners. I also support the introduction of safeguards ensuring that EU funding serves European interests and competitiveness, especially in the context of emerging technologies. Furthermore, the amendments rightly highlight the need to develop innovative legal and financial instruments to address long-term challenges related to nuclear waste and liability transfer, as well as to strengthen overall governance and coherence on the instrument.
However, I believe some further improvements are needed to further strengthen governance, strategic direction, and protection of the EU interest. In particular, my upcoming amendments will aim first on a strategic direction, second on governance and transparency, third on financial clarity, fourth on nuclear liabilities, and fifth on security and resilience. To conclude, I believe we will be able to approach this file in a constructive spirit. So I'm looking forward to the repertoire, the commission, the colleagues across the groups to achieve a balanced and strong final outcome. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Matti. And now, on behalf of the shadow Svetlina Penkova, we have our colleague, mister Ero Haynaluma from SND.
Eero Heinäluoma
Yes. Indeed. Thanks. And, unfortunately, our shadow, Sveta Trina Penkova, was not able to be present today, and she sends her apologies. She asked me to read the following comments on her behalf.
First, she wants to thank our reporter, Sopi Vilmes, for her work on this important file, ensuring a high level of nuclear safety board within the European Union and in partner countries is not only a technical necessity, but a matter of public trust, environmental responsibility, and long term sustainability. As Sado Rapporteur for the S and D Group, Sveld Lina would like to underline several key priorities that we believe should be strengthened in this report. First, governance must be at the heart of this instrument. We need stronger guarantees for regulatory capacity, independence, and transparency. This includes clear accountability mechanisms in nuclear governance, as well as enhanced parliamentary oversight.
The European Parliament must be systematically informed, and cooperation with partner countries should be regularly assessed against their commitments. Second, transparency in funding allocation is essential. Given the complexity and long-term nature of nuclear decommissioning and waste management, public confidence depends on full clarity on how EU resources are used and monitored. Third, we strongly support reinforcing independent regulatory oversight and international cooperation, including best-practice exchange both within the European Union and with partner countries. Fourth, we would like to emphasize the importance of knowledge sharing and EU added value.
The experience accumulated through decommissioning activities, particularly between the Joint Research Center, should be systematically disseminated across member states. And finally, we would like to stress that health, environmental protection, and sustainability must be more explicitly reflected in the objectives of the instrument. Preventing the negative impacts of radioactive materials on workers, the general public, and the environment should be clearly stated. This includes ensuring that all decommissioning and waste management activities adhere to the highest safety standards and prevent long-term harm. Overall, we support the direction of the report, but we believe these elements are essential to make the instrument more credible, more transparent, and more aligned with the union's social and environmental commitments.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And mister Paulo Borgia, now it's a shadow of PFE. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Well, renewing this instrument is not just a routine decision making. It's a strategic choice. It concerns Europe's energy security, industrial competitiveness, and technological serenity. But this proposal must be seen in the context of 2026.
Two weeks ago in Paris, president, founder Lyon acknowledged that reducing Europe's nuclear share from 33% of electricity in 1990 to around 50% today was a huge mistake. Today, the SMR strategy and the updated P I N C point to a change of direction. The initial resource mobilized around 200,000,000 are our first step, but, according to commission estimates, relaunching nuclear energy in Europe will require investment exceeding 400,000,000,000 by 2050, including new capacity, lifetime extensions, and full cycle management. At this scale, strategy alone is not sufficient. A solid industrial base is required because the issue today is not simple to fund yet another instrument, but to ensure that a European industrial value chain is in place to deliver on these objectives.
The issue is, therefore, how the INCC will be capable of contributing to building the industrial capacities required, across the nuclear value chain in line with the objectives identified in the PIMC. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thanks, Paulo. And now Mr. Chris Van Dijk from ECR. Thank you, colleagues.
Speaker 36
I'm going to speak Dutch. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank Sophie and colleagues for their very excellent draft report. I would, however, like to tackle some of the points, and these will be reflected in my amendments. I think it is crucial for the EU to cooperate with partners, but let us not shoot ourselves in the foot. See, we need to make sure that when we take decisions, we need to look at European interests if we tender to third countries.
Speaker 37
We need to stop being naive. We need to defend our geostrategic interests. I also call for more transparency in the area of finance by the European Commission. The European Parliament needs to be more involved. And I would also like to talk about the internal component of this initiative.
Speaker 36
Responsibility for dismantling and decommissioning of nuclear facilities is very complex, especially because the commitments are very lengthy in time and are very complex. We can see that a lot of things can go wrong, and member states don't want to repeat the same mistakes. I can witness as the mayor of a community or municipality where we had a chemical plant in the sixties, which was to be dismantled, it was handed over to the Belgian state. And missus Wilmes, I Mrs. Wilmes must know what I'm talking about because this really caused so many difficulties, because it cost 20 times more than what we had budgeted.
So it is very important to introduce a lot of guarantees for member states, and look at the financial and legal consequences. The European Commission, I think, needs to do a bit more homework in this area. But I do hope I can continue working on this very important document. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Sophie, for the great work that you have already done. And hearing my colleagues speaking, I'm really happy that we all seem to have very similar goals and similar targets when it comes to the work on this report. And I also expect that we will have quite some overlap between our amendments. I'm very glad that also we nearly all are taking up the recommendations of the report of the European Court of Auditors, regarding especially transparency and oversight, where the court was very clear that there is, let's say, room for improvement, and I believe that we should take this recommendation up when we're working on this regulation. When it comes to operator's responsibility, which is, of course, linked to the JRC legacy sites, it might be worthwhile looking at an instrument in the only country that has completed nuclear phase out and that has also taken care of the liability transfer when it comes to long term storage of nuclear waste.
So we have a regulation for that in Germany, and it was rather a long way to get there, but at least we now have an instrument in place. Our amendments as a group will focus on stronger support for Ukraine, so prioritization of Ukraine in the external instrument. We would like to keep SMRs completely out, for a simple reason. There is no European company even working on a concept for SMRs. So any anything that we would finance through this instrument would automatically go to competing operators.
Well, okay. Then we have different information. Well, let's discuss. We would also like to introduce a support for the protection of nuclear infrastructure from emerging threats such as cybersecurity, such as drone attacks, which we have seen in the past, and I believe this is something we should take into account. We want to protect the strategic autonomy of the EU and also, of course, our security interests.
And, we would also like to make a proposal for the budget allocation instead of leaving it all then in the hands of the Commission. I'm very much looking forward to negotiations, and I'm happy to work with you all. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And there is the end of our speaker list, and I don't see any catch the eye. So I will give the floor to mister Pascal Duress from DG, Jersey. Two minutes, please.
Speaker 40
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And, I want to join everybody to thank the rapporteur and the excellent work that has already been done, and we acknowledge the proposal for the amendment at this stage. I just want to mention, to be very brief, that some of them are common sense and good practices that are already applied by the commission under the current two legislation that emerged into this new one. And just a small example because we had the debate on Iqnalina just before that one. And it was mentioned, the knowledge that is generated by the commission in Iqnalina, and this is in the current regulation that we are talking about now, that this knowledge is gathered and shared with all the stakeholders of EU level.
Speaker 39
So you see it's a concrete example of what is already going on in line with one of the proposals of the amendment. I will not take the floor too long, and I want just to thank you again and wait for the final version of the proposal of the European Parliament. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now, this is the end of our discussion. So this is the floor for the final remarks of our reporters. So Sophie, the floor is yours.
Speaker 34
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, all of you, for your words of appreciation and your remark concerning the report that I have put forward to work with you. First of all, it's always very comforting to hear the European Commission telling us that our report is full of common sense. That is always appreciated. And if there are things which are already practiced by the European Commission, then I'm sure the European Commission will see very positively what we are putting on paper.
So thank you for that comment. I also I'm not sure how I will pronounce your first name well. Juta? Is that right? Juta?
You I think you started your intervention with the way I wanted to wrap up this conversation because when we listen to all of us, all the intervention, it seems that there is a lot of convergence. And I heard indeed many times speaking about transparency, governments, but also EU competitiveness is very important, I think, for all of us. And you have seen that in my report. It is something that is important as well. European competitiveness for me is going hand in hand with sovereignty.
Somebody mentioned that as well. Transfer of the nuclear liabilities hand in hand with the member states. Yes. Of course. Otherwise, it does not work, and the idea is to make it work.
Just a point on the SMR. We will have further discussions on it, but I can confirm that there are a lot of European SMR projects, and it is because we have European SMR projects and because we are in a competing world and because we want competitiveness and strategic autonomy that we have to be careful not to shoot ourselves in the foot and help other countries to win this competition with European cities and money. Voilà. This is it, and, I'm really looking forward to the constructive discussion that we will have. Thank you so much.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Sophie. And I just remind you that the deadline for amendment is 26 March at noon. So thanks a lot for this morning session, and now we'll have the lunch break, and we will meet again at 2:30 in this room.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.