Committee on Public Health Ordinary meeting Joint meeting Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
SANT European Parliament
Follow its sittingsAdam Jarubas
Dear colleagues. Dear colleagues, can you hear me? No. We will start in a moment, please take your seat. Oh, yes, I've got...
Okay. It works. Dear colleagues, welcome to the full and substitute members of the SANT and the Employment Committee at the joint committee meeting. Point one, adoption of the agenda.
If there are no objections, the agenda is deemed adopted. Thank you. Point two, chair's announcement. Interpretation is provided in the following languages: German, English, French, Italian, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, Czech, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Polish, Slovak, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Croatian. Point three, adoption of minutes.
We have two minutes, 24th September 2025 and 23rd October 2025.
If there are no objections, the minutes of the meeting are deemed adopted. Thank you so much. Point four, vote on the draft report on an EU health workforce crisis plan, sustainability of healthcare systems and employment and working conditions in the healthcare sector. Dear colleagues, it is a pleasure for me to co-chair this meeting, this joint meeting with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs with the vote on the report on an EU health workforce crisis plan.
The current crisis affecting Europe's health workforce is not only a sectoral issue, but a challenge for the Union as a whole. The work has been intense at political and technical level to reach today's vote. The time devoted to this file also shows how deeply colleagues care about the resilience of our health systems and about those who sustain them every day. This is why the report focuses on staff shortages, working conditions, regional disparities, mental well-being, human-centric digitalization and better support for professionals across the Union. Before proceeding with the vote, I give the floor to both the rapporteurs for a one-minute statement.
But before passing the floor to our rapporteurs, I would like to invite MEP Li Andersson, the chair of the Committee of Employment and Social Affairs, to take the floor, please.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And dear chair, I fully share your remarks.
The health workforce is a pillar of our society in the EU, and the great challenges that it faces need to be addressed in a multifaceted and also an urgent manner.
The importance of the issue which we will vote on today is also testified by the no less than 865 amendments that have been tabled. I am convinced that the several important calls contained in this motion for resolution will contribute to better recognizing, mapping, and eventually rectifying the issues faced by our healthcare workforce, in view of making such a vital sector more attractive and more sustainable. So thank you very much.
Adam Jarubas
Thank you, Aliki. And now I give the floor to both the rapporteurs for a one-minute statement, starting with MEP Fourlas from the employment and then MEP Răduza from the SANT committee.
Loucas Fourlas
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I will be very brief. I would like to thank my co-rapporteur Ruggero Razza, my team, our EPP policy advisor Marina Stefou, the secretariat and all the shadow rapporteurs for the excellent work and cooperation throughout this process. I believe that what we have achieved today will help improve the lives of millions of people in the healthcare sector across the European Union.
Thank you all, let's vote.
Ruggero Razza
Grazie, Presidente. Anch'io sarò telegrafico per ringraziare anzitutto il collega correlatore Loukas Fourlas per il lavoro che abbiamo svolto insieme, per ringraziare tutti i relatori ombra che hanno contribuito a rendere il testo con le loro proposte molto più aderente a una visione attuale della situazione in tutti gli Stati membri dell'Unione Europea.
Ma desidero ringraziare anche tutti i colleghi, prima il presidente parlava di oltre 800 emendamenti. Questo è stato un file al quale ciascuno ha sentito di potere dare il proprio contributo proprio perché il tema coinvolge la vita di tutti. Un ringraziamento ovviamente che sento di rivolgere a tutti gli staff tecnici di tutti i gruppi politici perché le riunioni tecniche sono state particolarmente intense e particolarmente produttive, così come al segretariato di entrambe le commissioni, sia EMPL che SANT, perché oggi elaboriamo una proposta di risoluzione dalla quale ci si attende molto anche dalla Commissione nel caso dovesse essere approvata. Grazie a tutti.
Adam Jarubas
Dear colleagues, short info about replacement before we start the vote. From Patriots, Hermann Tertsch replaces Margarita de la Pisa and MEP Dieringer will replace MEP Hauser. From Renew, Lukas Sieper replaces Stine Bosse and ECR Marcos Quarta will vote for the ECR SANT quota.
Li Andersson
Okay, and from EMPL side, Mrs. Abadía Jover is replaced by Mrs. Montserrat, EPP. Mrs. Mendía is replaced by Mrs. Sancho Murillo from S&D. Mrs. Dochy replaced by Mrs. Deloge from Patriots. Mr. Hauser is replaced by Mrs. Steger, Patriots.
Mrs. Donazzan is replaced by Mr. Crosetto, ECR. Mrs. Meloni is replaced by Mr. Ciccioli, ECR. And Mrs. Peter-Hansen is replaced by Mr. Søndergaard, Greens. Mrs. Langensiepen is replaced by Mr. Marquardt, Greens. And Mr. Radtke is replaced by Mr. Beleris, EPP.
That is correct, no?
Adam Jarubas
Okay, colleagues, we've got an information about replacement. Before we start our regular vote, let's do a testing electronic vote. I open the vote.
It probably doesn't work. I'd like to ask our technical... Oh, okay. It's working. I close the vote.
Okay. Thank you so much. So let's do vote. We start with voting by raising hands. Compromise amendment one, who is in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise amendment two, who is in favor?
Okay, so sorry, sorry, sorry. Sorry. Amendment 832, who is in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Okay, let's check if you want. I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted.
Okay. Compromise amendment 2, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment 3, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted.
We have 367 part two. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment four. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Amendment 353.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 356.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise amendment 5.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise amendment 6.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Amendment 395. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected.
Compromise amendment 7. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Amendment 420. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Amendment 422. Who is in favor?
Against? Abstention? Rejected. Amendment 431, who is in favor? Against?
Abstention? Rejected. 432, who is in favor? Against? Abstention?
We should check it, I think so. I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted. Amendment 334, who is in favor?
Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise amendment 8. Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment 9. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment 10. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment 11, who is in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise amendment 12, who is in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise amendment 13, who is in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Amendment 542, who is in favor? Against? Abstention? We should check it.
I open the vote. I close the vote.
Adopted. Compromise amendment 14, who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Amendment 562, who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise amendment 15, who is in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 571, who is in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 572, who is in favor?
Against? Abstention? Rejected. Amendment 573. Who is in favor?
Against? Abstention? Rejected. Okay, if you want, let's check. I open the vote.
I close the vote. Adopted. Compromise amendment 16. Who is in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 421, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Rejected. Compromise amendment 17, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment 18, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 614, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Rejected. 616, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Rejected. Compromise amendment 19, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise amendment 20, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment 21, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 664, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? We should check it, please. I open the vote.
I close the vote. Rejected by one. Okay, amendment 670. Who is in favor? Against?
Abstention? Let's do the same. Let's check, please. I open the vote.
I close the vote. Adopted. Amendment 674, who is in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Amendment 675, who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment 22, who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise amendment 23, who is in favor?
Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise amendment 24. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention.
Adopted. Compromise amendment 25. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention.
Adopted. Compromise amendment 26. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention.
Adopted. Amendment 822, part 1. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention.
Let's check. I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted. Compromise amendment 27.
In favor. Against. Abstention.
Adopted. Compromise amendment 28. In favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise amendment 29. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise amendment 30. Who is in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 831, part 1. Who is in favor? Against?
Abstention? Let's check it. I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted.
Compromise amendment 31. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment 32. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment A. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Amendment 94. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise amendment B. Who is in favor? Whoa, whoa, okay, okay. One moment, many pages to look, check. Are you ready?
Okay. Compromise amendment B. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Let's move on to the final vote by roll call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. Okay, congratulations, report is adopted.
So a strong majority. Thank you so much, especially to our colleagues from employment, but we continue our SANT committee in a moment. Thank you so much.
Dragoș Pîslaru
Good morning, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to this joint meeting of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. I'm very pleased to co-chair this meeting with my colleague, Pascal Canfin, the chair of the ENVI Committee. The main item on our agenda today is the presentation of the European Commission's proposal for a directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work. This is a very important and timely proposal, as asbestos remains one of the leading causes of occupational cancer in the European Union.
We have with us today Commissioner Nicolas Schmit, who is responsible for Jobs and Social Rights, and Commissioner Stella Kyriakides, who is responsible for Health and Food Safety. They will present the proposal and then we will have a round of questions from the members of both committees. Before I give the floor to the Commissioners, I would like to ask Pascal if he has any opening remarks.
Thank you, Dragoș. I'm also very happy to be here today for this joint meeting. As you said, the issue of asbestos is a major public health concern, and it's crucial that we take action to protect workers and the general public from its harmful effects.
Dragoș Pîslaru
We have a very important agenda today, focusing on the intersection of health and employment policies within the European Union. Our first item is the adoption of the agenda. Are there any objections or additions to the proposed agenda? Seeing none, the agenda is adopted. Next, we have the approval of the minutes from our previous joint meeting.
If there are no comments, we will consider them approved. Now, I would like to give the floor to our first guest speaker, who will present the latest findings on occupational health and safety trends across Member States. This is a crucial topic as we look to strengthen our social model and ensure a high level of protection for all workers. Please, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to both committees for the invitation. It is a pleasure to be here to discuss these vital issues. Our recent data shows that while there have been improvements in some areas, significant challenges remain, particularly regarding mental health in the workplace and the impact of new technologies on working conditions.
Dragoș Pîslaru
I would like to inform you that the meeting is being held in a hybrid format, with some members participating remotely and others present in the room. The interpretation is available in 22 languages, and I would like to remind you that the meeting is being webstreamed. The first item on our agenda is the adoption of the draft agenda. Are there any objections to the agenda? I see no objections, so the agenda is adopted.
The second item is the approval of the minutes of the meeting of the 16th of May 2022. Are there any comments or objections to the minutes? I see no objections, so the minutes are approved. The third item is the chair's announcements. I would like to inform you that the coordinators of the two committees have agreed to hold this joint meeting to discuss the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights and the European Green Deal.
I'm very pleased to co-chair this meeting with my colleague, Pascal Canfin, the chair of the ENVI committee. The meeting is being held in a hybrid format, with some members present in the room and others participating remotely. The interpretation is available in all the official languages of the European Union. The purpose of today's meeting is to have an exchange of views with the Commission on the Social Climate Fund. This is a very important proposal, which is part of the Fit for 55 package.
The Social Climate Fund aims to address the social and distributional impacts of the new emissions trading system for buildings and road transport. It will provide funding to Member States to support vulnerable households, micro-enterprises, and transport users. We have with us today representatives from the Commission who will present the proposal and answer our questions.
Adam Jarubas
Okay, colleagues, please take your seat. We will continue in a moment.
Okay, let's move on to the point four, vote to challenge the coordinator's decision not to act on petitions 2287/2025. Dear colleagues, on May the secretariat has received a message from Christine Anderson on behalf of the ESN group contesting the coordinator's decision of 6 May on item 10, petitions for information, petitions 202287/2025.
You have received the voting list by email. A vote in favor means approval of the coordinator's decision of 6 May 2026, thus the rejection of the contestation. A vote against means rejection of the coordinator's decision of 6 May 2026 and therefore the approval of the contestation. I know that Ms. Andersson wants to take the floor, but there is no such opportunity according to rules 22 duties, rules of procedure. I conduct this meeting.
This is a contestation of a decision of coordinators.
There was no request to debate this, so I propose to move directly to the vote.
Christine Anderson
Chair, I have a point of order. I would like to raise a point of order, please.
Christine Anderson
Yes, Chair, I'm basing it on rule 202. I'm contesting the decision that was taken by the coordinators and that is up for a vote now. What we are looking at is a petition where a participant in the Pfizer trial participated and he was severely injured by the mRNA injection.
And we should take a look at this at least. This is the subcommittee public health and if we sweep it under the rug, with all due respect, if we keep it under the sweep it under the rug, then we actually confirm what the people are thinking about us anyway, that we are trying to hide stuff. We should take at least take a look at this petition. Thank you.
Erik Marquardt
Mr. Chair, just a replacement that I just wanted to say that I'm not a SANT member and my name is Mr. Marquardt and I'm replacing Mr. Marino now in this vote.
Adam Jarubas
Yes, noted. Okay. Okay, we took note. Dear colleagues, let's proceed to the vote. First, let's do a testing vote because it is roll call.
I open the vote. Testing vote. I close the vote. Okay. So we're moving to the regular roll call.
I open the vote. I close the vote. This is adopted. Thank you so much. Point five, laying a framework for strengthening the availability and security of supply of critical medicines products, as well as the availability and accessibility of medicinal products of common interest.
Okay, let's have a very, very short break.
Dear colleagues, as you know, on the 11th of May, the third and final trilogue on the CMA file took place in the Parliament, during which we reached a provisional agreement with the Council. This deal should ensure a high level of public health protection for EU citizens by reducing dependency on non-EU countries and boosting the competitiveness of the EU pharmaceutical sector.
I would like to thank the rapporteur Tomislav Sokol and shadow rapporteurs for an excellent cooperation in this file. I will give the floor to Tomislav, our rapporteur on the file, to report back on the political discussion of the trilogue. Tomislav, could you take the floor please?
Tomislav Sokol
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you chair for giving me the floor. I'll go straight to the point. So the agreement on the Critical Medicines Act demonstrates that when Europe's health security and strategic autonomy are at stake, EU can act decisively and deliver concrete results.
The Parliament entered these negotiations with a clear objective. The CMA had to become more than a symbolic response to shortages. It had to provide practical tools to strengthen security of supply, reinforce European manufacturing capacities, and reduce our dependencies on third countries. And I would also like to add to that, also achieving or facilitating equal access to medicines, because it is unacceptable that innovative medicines get to some markets, some national markets, two or three years after some other markets in the EU, which is unacceptable, and CMA also tried to tackle that to a significant extent. I would like to highlight three key achievements secured by the Parliament during the negotiations.
So first on the scope. Parliament successfully secured the inclusion of all orphan drugs, orphan medicines in key provisions of this act. Patients suffering from rare diseases are often among the most vulnerable and thus it was essential that they were not left behind. And I would like to mention that here specifically that 95% of patients suffering from rare diseases do not have a treatment. So facilitating and incentivizing development of new medicines for rare diseases in Europe should be one of the main strategic priorities of the EU.
So as a result, orphan medicinal products will be eligible for collaborative procurement at European level, allowing member states to join forces and improve access to these medicines. We also ensured that orphan medicinal products can benefit from the streamlined permitting procedures established under the act.
Strategic projects involving these products will therefore have access to faster and more predictable authorization procedures, helping to attract investment and strengthen production capacity within the EU. So, essentially, this means that development of new orphan drugs will be much easier, simpler and faster than before, and through collaborative procurement will strengthen the negotiating position of Member States, which should make it easier for them to acquire these medicines faster and at a lower cost, which is extremely important in terms of ensuring equality of access for patients. Second, on procurement and the Buy European approach.
For too long, procurement of medicines has been driven almost exclusively by the lowest price. While this may have reduced costs in the short term, it also contributed to the relocation of production outside Europe and increased our dependence on fragile global supply chains, especially in combination with having only one winner in a tender, so combination of lowest price and one winner.
Tomislav Sokol
So combination of one winner tenders and the lowest price resulted in increased dependency on imports, especially of generic medicines from India and China, which for us from a point of view of security of supply is unacceptable.
So the agreement fundamentally changes this approach. For critical medicines where there is a high level of dependence on a single or a limited number of third countries preference should be given to production based in the European Union. Price will no longer be the sole or dominant criterion in public procurement. Instead contracting authorities will be able to favor suppliers of critical medicines and their active substances manufactured in the Union by applying a scoring system that proportionately rewards the share of manufacturing taking place within the EU. In this context contracting authorities may allocate additional points to manufacturers that offer 50% or more of the medicinal products and their active substances manufactured in the Union.
This creates a strong incentive for companies to invest in European production capacities and supply chains. This is not about protectionism. It is about resilience, reliability and security of supply. Europe cannot continue outsourcing the production of critical medicines while expecting guaranteed access during crisis.
Strategic autonomy in healthcare is no longer optional, but a necessity. The same principles will also apply to collaborative procurement conducted at European level, helping to strengthen supply security across the Union. And third, on solidarity and contingency stocks. So Parliament insisted that measures introduced in one member state must not create shortages in another, which unfortunately sometimes takes place. We therefore secured clear safeguards stating that contingency stock requirements applied in one member state must not have a negative impact on the availability of medicines in other member states.
But we went further than that. Member states will be required to inform the Critical Medicines Coordination Group of their intention to introduce or significantly modify contingency stock requirements.
This will increase transparency and allow exchanges based on the principles of proportionality and solidarity. We also strengthened the link with the European Voluntary Solidarity Mechanism. When the mechanism is activated, member states will provide information on available stocks of critical medicines that can be relocated to countries facing shortages. And where voluntary measures are not sufficient, recommendations may be issued inviting member states to adapt contingency stock requirements in order to facilitate the supply of medicines to member states who are experiencing shortages and ensure optimal allocation of critical medicines across the EU.
So on this, this is like I would say the only part where the Parliament was not able to achieve all of its objectives from the mandate in the sense of adopting a mandatory redistribution mechanism, but definitely when taking into account everything that I mentioned in terms of solidarity, transparency on the European level, I think that we achieved a major, major, major improvement when compared to what we have today. Overall, this agreement strengthens Europe's ability to prevent shortages, supports investment in pharmaceutical manufacturing, modernizes procurement rules and reinforces the competitiveness of our pharmaceutical sector.
So in the end I would like to thank shadow rapporteurs, the Council presidency and the Commission for their constructive cooperation throughout the negotiations. The result is I think balanced and ambitious agreement that puts European patients, European resilience and European competitiveness at its center. Thank you.
Adam Jarubas
Thank you so much Tomislav, thank you for your report and for your great work during the negotiations. Thank you all shadows as well.
It's a really great moment in building of our citizens' security and European Health Union as well. Thank you so much. Respect. Dear colleagues, let's move on to the sixth point, mission to Warsaw and Pabianice, Poland, 30th March and 1st April. Our delegation was composed of three members in total.
The main objective of this mission was to discuss key healthcare policy issues in Poland with a particular focus on pharmaceutical policy and the state of the pharmaceutical industry in Poland.
Our delegation held meetings with the Minister and Deputy Minister of Health, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Health and the Chair of the Senate Committee on the European Union. We have also met representatives of the Polish patients' organizations and of the pharmaceutical industry. The major topics that were discussed during these meetings covered the new pharmaceutical package and plans for its implementation in Poland, the expectations of Poland and Polish industry regarding the Critical Medicines Act, our current work on the Biotech Act, the main challenges related to reinforcing EU independence in the production of critical medicines, the challenges faced by the Polish pharmaceutical industry in the production of APIs, and the EU and national financial support for pharma industry.
In addition, our delegation discussed with the representatives of patient's organization the most important topics for patients in Poland, such as availability of oncological and neurological treatments, access to treatment for rare diseases, and access to diagnostics and consultation with specialists.
During our mission, we had the opportunity to visit the premises of Adamed Pharma in Pabianice. This is one of the largest Polish producers, sorry, of pharmaceutical products in Poland. We could observe the full process of medicine production, starting from the visit to the laboratories where new products are developed and tested, and finishing on observing the packaging process and final control systems. During the mission, we have learned about the healthcare landscape in Poland and the most important challenge, for example, in accessing medicines, addressing rare diseases, workforce shortage, and mental health.
We have gained insight into the practical aspects of the full cycle of production of medicines. In conclusion, the mission was very successful and the debates were enriching and fruitful. Now I would like to ask if any of other members of the delegation would like to take the floor. If not, I thank you all. Dear colleagues, now we're moving on to the point seven, exchange of views with Mrs. Pamela Rendi-Wagner, Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control on the annual activity report.
Please join to us in the podium. I didn't know that Mrs. Pamela Rendi-Wagner couldn't join us personally, but we have you remotely, so it's great. Dear colleagues, ECDC works to prevent threats to human health from disease outbreaks and to react quickly and effectively to minimize their impact. ECDC operates dedicated surveillance networks, provides scientific opinion, operates the early warning and response system, and provides scientific and technical assistance and training.
I will first give the floor to Mrs. Rendi-Wagner for a maximum of 12 minutes for her initial statement. This will be followed by an intervention from Mr. Oliver Schenk, who is the European Parliament's contact point for ECDC, and a first round of reactions from the coordinators of SANT committee. Afterwards, we will continue with Q&A session.
Mrs. Rendi-Wagner, you have the floor for 12 minutes for your introductory statement. The floor is yours, please.
Pamela Rendi-Wagner
Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair, and dear members of the European Parliament. Heartful good morning from Stockholm. It's indeed a pity I cannot be with you in person today due to the strike in Brussels yesterday, but thanks for providing me the opportunity to do this report today online, and I hope the technical part works. Well, as we speak right now, Europe's health security system is indeed being tested in real time.
So in the past weeks, ECDC has been coordinating the response to two serious outbreaks: the ongoing Ebola outbreak in Central Africa and the recent Hantavirus outbreak on a Dutch cruise ship. So this hearing today, well, comes more than timely, I can say. And the new European health security framework, where the European Parliament indeed played a key role, has been used in global health emergency as we speak. And this framework has given us, has given ECDC more tools than we had ever before, and tools that we were able to scale up quickly and efficiently if needed.
So let me start with the Ebola outbreak. According to the latest data available, we currently have 332 confirmed cases in DRC and in Uganda, 49 related deaths and 116 suspected cases. No imported case to the EU EEA so far. Well, after WHO declared the public health emergency on May 17, ECDC immediately stepped up its response.
Within two days, we deployed our expert through the EU Health Task Force directly to Africa CDC headquarters in Addis Ababa to support the outbreak coordination and planning activities. And again, two days later, we issued a rapid risk assessment where we stressed that the risk currently for the wider public in Europe is very low. Nevertheless, nevertheless, and I want to say this very clearly, this outbreak is of serious concern because, first of all, it is unfolding in an environment marked by instability and insecurity. Secondly, it involves the Bundibugyo virus, for which we know there is currently no licensed vaccine available or specific treatment.
Thirdly, there are major challenges in surveillance, in diagnostics, in contact tracing in the affected countries. Well, giving this, given this very complex situation, we can therefore not, and this is a very important point, not only rely on our experience from past Ebola outbreaks. We need to learn from the field as soon as possible for this specific outbreak and we need to adapt our response to this specific new outbreak. So the approach to protect the European Union remains threefold. First, support the outbreak control at the source in the affected countries.
Second, ensure rapid detection, rapid containment in the event of an imported case to the European Union by increased preparedness in the Member States and ensure that all arriving passengers from affected countries receive relevant information what to do in case of any symptoms.
Third point, it's important that there are well-organized and functioning exit screening at the international airports in the affected countries in place. This is important to reduce the risk of importation to the EU and to minimize the risk of any transmission on board on long-distance flights through an infected symptomatic passenger. Well, in order to learn more, in order to get more first-hand information as soon as possible, in order to support the affected countries and in order to assess any of these exit screenings, ECDC will increase its presence in the affected regions by deploying more staff via the EU Health Task Force in the upcoming days and weeks. ECDC has also produced advice for the aviation sector to strengthen safety of passengers on board of planes coming from this region.
This and much, much more actually is done in close collaboration of course with the member states, with the European Commission and our international partners. I'm coming to Hantavirus outbreak because similar close collaboration was put in action for the Hantavirus outbreak only a few weeks ago with the excellent cooperation and I want to say thank you for that of our Dutch and Spanish colleagues.
And again, within two days, so very, very quickly, ECDC made a rapid risk assessment, and we published also guidance for the member states to ensure the safety of the passengers on board of the ship and also the passengers who left the ship earlier. Within half a day, half a day, ECDC activated its European Health Task Force with an ECDC expert deployed on board of the Dutch cruise ship, and we sent also a second team of experts on the ground in Tenerife to support the disembarkment procedures with the Spanish authorities. Moreover, the new EU Health Task Force was activated to ensure quick and, no, sorry, the EU reference laboratories were activated to ensure a quick and high-quality diagnostic in the member states.
So from the beginning of the outbreak, ECDC was fast, we were clear, and we were very strong in our advice. From the beginning, ECDC adopted a precautionary approach by recommending the safe medical repatriation of all ship passengers. Well, given the long incubation period, we continue to closely monitor the hantavirus situation together with the affected member states.
For both outbreaks, ECDC made use of new tools that were created following the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the EU Health Task Force to support quickly with our experts on the ground, hands-on, and second, the EU reference laboratories, which are new, and it's important for fast and modern diagnostics, including fast genomic sequencing of new viruses. These tools have allowed in these highly complex situations for a faster, strongly coordinated and more effective response.
Well, preparedness and response are very key components of ECDC's work, but we must not forget the importance of prevention of infectious diseases. In 2023, Europe recorded, and I'm sure you all know that, recorded longer and more intense transmission seasons for mosquito-borne diseases, for example, including West Nile and Chikungunya. ECDC is therefore currently strengthening surveillance of vector-borne diseases, as well laboratory preparedness and climate-sensitive risk assessments together with the Member States.
Second, another challenge: sexually transmitted infections continue to rise at a worrying speed. In short, we see a doubling and a tripling of some of the STIs over the last 10 years in Europe. We are off track with the SDG targets when it comes to HIV, TB, viral hepatitis, and sexual transmitted infections. So, according to our mathematical modeling, due to failure to achieve these targets, we will see 80,000 new HIV infections and over 9,000 deaths due to tuberculosis in the upcoming three years in Europe, with antimicrobial resistance contributing, of course, to these TB-related deaths.
And this brings me straight to antimicrobial resistance, which is still most, well, maybe one of the most serious public health threats we're facing in Europe, being especially dangerous for aging populations with chronic diseases. Currently, we also see more than 4 million cases per year of hospital infections, and they account for more than 70% of the burden of AMR in Europe.
Well, in order to support the member states, we have strengthened genomic sequencing, we have reinforced the support for antimicrobial stewardship and advanced One Health cooperation in this matter. Well, last but not least, vaccination remains one of the strongest investments in Europe's health. Taking HPV, human papillomavirus vaccination as an example, cervical cancer is still today the fourth most common cancer and second most common cause of death in young women. Today, it is preventable through vaccination.
Well dear members of the European Parliament 25 was a very intense year with lots of old and new challenges for ECDC. So last year I'm very happy to say that we produced 170 scientific outbreaks risk assessments and actionable guidance for the member states. We conducted 12 country missions to assess in 25 the preparedness mechanisms of the member states. In total so far we have assessed 25 member states. We activated the European Task Force last year 14 times.
And since my start as ECDC director I've always stressed the importance of international cooperation.
So this is key to be quicker informed and to have trusted partners in the case of any crisis like the one we are in now. In 25, we signed therefore eight new international memorandums of understanding with international partners. The latest was only a few months ago with Africa CDC, and this Africa CDC memorandum is more than useful in the current situation. So until today, we have also coordinated successfully the set-up of 10 new EU reference laboratories across the EU, which proved immediately useful in Hunter and the Ebola outbreaks right now, and we are working on a new one on biotoxins. So I'm coming to the end.
25, you know, was my first full year as ECDC director and I would really like to thank all ECDC staff and colleagues for their great achievements in 25. And let me conclude that ECDC's work is always, always based on science and trusted partnership, including the partnership with the European Parliament. We are always ready to support you. Thank you, Chair.
Adam Jarubas
Thank you so much, Mrs. Rendi-Wagner, for your work and your presentation. Now I will give the floor to Oliver Schenk, the Parliament contact person for ECDC.
Oliver Schenk
Vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender. Frau Wagner, herzlich willkommen. Ich hatte gestern selbst größere Probleme bei der Anreise nach Brüssel, deshalb bedauere ich sehr, dass ich Sie heute nicht hier im Saal begrüßen kann dort, aber ich bin sicher, wir holen das in Kürze nach. Vielen Dank, dass Sie diese beiden Themen Ebola und Hantavirus angesprochen haben. Wir haben selbst eine Debatte dazu geführt in der letzten Plenarwoche in Straßburg.
Und ich glaube, das hat uns wieder sehr deutlich vor Augen geführt, dass Gesundheitsbedrohungen heute halt zunehmend an der Schnittstelle von Mensch, Tier und Umwelt entstehen und dann noch einmal beschleunigt auch durch Klimaveränderungen, Mobilität und globale Vernetzung sie zusätzlich beschleunigt und beeinflusst werden.
Das ECDC, und dafür vielen Dank für die Arbeit von Ihnen, der Kolleginnen und Kollegen, spielt aus meiner Sicht eine Schlüsselrolle bei der Früherkennung von Risiken und der Unterstützung der Mitgliedstaaten. Und ich bin sehr froh und dankbar, dass Sie dies auch zu einem Schwerpunkt Ihrer Tätigkeit gemacht haben. Mich interessieren vor allem die nächsten Schritte bei Prävention, Vorsorge und dem Einsatz neuer Technologien.
Und ich weiß, dass das ECDC die Modernisierung der europäischen Surveillance-Systeme ja zu einem Schwerpunkt, zu einer besonderen Priorität erklärt hat. Und deshalb drei Fragen von mir an der Stelle ganz konkret. Welche konkreten Anwendungen von KI sehen Sie in den kommenden Jahren für die Früherkennung neuer Ausbrüche oder zoonotischer Risiken? Und welche Voraussetzungen müssen wir auf europäischer Ebene schaffen, damit diese Instrumente auch wirklich ihr volles Potenzial und ihre Anwendungsmöglichkeiten in den Mitgliedstaaten und darüber hinaus entfalten können? Das Zweite: Bei Erkrankungen wie Hantavirus sehen wir bereits heute den Einfluss ökologischer und klimatischer Veränderungen auf Gesundheitsrisiken in Europa.
Man könnte auch noch andere Beispiele nennen.
Wie bewertet jetzt ECDC die künftige Entwicklung solcher zoonotischen Erkrankungen und welche zusätzlichen Maßnahmen sind aus Ihrer Sicht jetzt notwendig, um diesen One-Health-Ansatz in der europäischen Gesundheitsversorgung auch weiter zu stärken? Und der dritte Punkt: Wo sehen Sie derzeit noch die größten Lücken in der europäischen Preparedness-Architektur, die wir zugegebenermaßen jetzt ja auch sozusagen mit den Lehren aus der Pandemie weiter aufbauen, stärken? Deshalb ist glaube ich sozusagen Ihr Hinweis auch noch mal auf Surveillance, Datenaustausch, Laborkapazitäten oder medizinische Gegenmaßnahmen wichtig.
Und wo sollten wir jetzt auch, und ich sage das auch mit Blick auf die Fragen, die wir jetzt führen, mit Blick auf den kommenden Haushalt, auch aus unserer Sicht noch mal ein besonderes Augenmerk haben, besondere Schwerpunkte setzen? Vielen Dank.
Adam Jarubas
Thank you, Oliver. We continue our discussion and Andreas Kulja is the first.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you, and thank you, Director, for being with us, even online.
Last week, the SANT Committee took part in a very important mission to Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh, where we discussed, among other issues, the importance of preparedness, surveillance capacities, cross-border cooperation, and rapid response to emerging infectious disease threats. During our meeting with the leadership of the US CDC, the ongoing Ebola outbreaks were also discussed. And in this context, they expressly underlined and highlighted the professionalism and high quality of ECDC's work. So we are very, very happy and honored to hear this.
And in light of the ongoing Ebola disease outbreak affecting the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, as well as the significant increase in the international flows linked to major global events such as the FIFA World Cup, could you please outline ECDC's current assessment on the risk to the EU, especially linked to the FIFA World Cup? And building on to what you have just outlined, could you identify what ECDC currently sees as the most important remaining vulnerability in the EU's preparedness for high-consequence infectious diseases such as Ebola?
In particular, are there any areas where the member states' capacity still differs significantly, for example in early detection, laboratory diagnostics, hospital isolation capacity, contact tracing or risk communication, and where further EU-level coordination would be most urgently needed?
Christophe Clergeau
Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Mrs. Rendi-Wagner, and congratulations for your work and the work of your team. We fully understand that it's difficult for you to be in Brussels today regarding the task you have to face. And I will have three different questions, complementary from my colleagues, more about the future and the debate we will have here in the Parliament in the next months. The first is about MFF.
And we are not discussing a lot about the budget for the agencies.
So it would be useful to hear from you the vision you have of the evolution of your tasks and if you consider to have the resources corresponding to the missions objectives that the EU is giving to you and corresponding to the difficulties, the crisis you have to tackle any day that are growing, growing, growing, growing. Second question, you referred different times to One Health issues and One Health approach. And we have this One Health task force across the agencies and if I remember well you had the opportunity to chair, to coordinate by yourself this task force. Perhaps you could say more to this committee about how useful it is, how it can be strengthened and what could be the future of this cooperation between agencies on One Health.
And my third question is about the future of ECDC because we know there is an evaluation pending. When you were evoking AMR, you were evoking the interface between CDs and NCDs and perhaps you can say more about the possibility for the future for ECDC to have more competencies in link with non-communicable diseases.
Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much. And I speak on behalf of Vlad, who just arrived. So, dear Pamela, as you very well know, these are trying times for Europe and for global health. The World Health Organization system is, you could actually call it, under attack. It is being defunded and important experts are being withdrawn.
That means that Europe and everyone else is now more exposed to the next pandemic, for example, avian flu.
The EU institutions and Member States taken together are the biggest contributors to the WHO. We must use this position and leverage it. A direct consequence of this is the fact that new pandemics for which there are no known vaccines yet, like Ebola, present even bigger threats to the world and obviously to Europe. And this is exactly why we need our ECDC and our HERA.
Strong mandates, secured funding, more Europe in ensuring our resilience and security also in the public health crisis area. So, dear Pamela, do you see yourself with everything that I mentioned here, do you see yourself funded, and this is I guess really also corresponding to my colleagues' questions, well enough? Do you see yourself positioned well enough to attract attention from the countries? I mean, are they listening when you speak? And then again on, you know, could it be an idea to have an even stronger and better radar to the...
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.