Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
IMCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsHenning Ehrenstein
Strategic objectives are security and resilience, social procurement, green procurement, innovation procurement, and European preference. I don't know if I can operate the slides or if someone will do that for me. Thank you very much. And to the next one already, please. Thank you.
So simplification first takes the form of creating a single rulebook, empowering public buyers to do their job. So this requires a clear set of rules.
We have decided in our proposal to therefore unify the three existing main procurement directives as well as procurement provisions from 21 sectoral EU acts into a single rulebook, a proposal for a single regulation. So directly applicable regulation, uniform application without gold plating, with one integrated digital marketplace, to which I come in a moment. So empowering public buyers, how do we intend to do this? Next slide, please. Thank you.
We are making available three main procedures to public buyers: the open procedure, which largely mirrors the existing one; a dynamic procedure, mostly but not only for off-the-shelf purchases, where we create a pool of suppliers up front and then individual procurements are open to bids from this pool of suppliers that remains dynamic; and thirdly, an innovation procedure specifically for the purchase of innovative solutions that first need to be developed and are then deployed. Importantly, there's no conditions to the use of these three procedures. A lot of transparency and flexibility for public buyers to choose which of the procedures they would like to use, and then flexibility within the procedures as well.
So, for example, they can decide to negotiate with bidders, but they don't have to. They can use selection criteria, but they don't have to. And they can decide on which quality criteria, and I'll come to this in a moment, to use in the course of the procurement procedures. So a lot of operational flexibility and discretion for public buyers. That, however, has to come with guardrails.
So we reduce the administrative procedures they have to run through, which were initially in the existing directives conceived in order to prevent irregularities and abuse. And we propose to ensure this prevention of irregularities through greater transparency and accountability instead of the more bureaucratic procedural controls. And for that, we oblige, move this to the next slide please, all procurements to take place via a digital marketplace.
This we have not gone for the option of the creation of an EU Brussels platform that replaces all 126 existing digital procurement platforms in the member states but indeed instead for a networking of the existing platforms making them interoperable and act as an integrated single system jointly that will allow for seamless evidence exchange. So for example a company from Portugal being able to participate through the Portuguese platform in a procurement procedure in Spain without having to re-register submit all documents on the Spanish platforms and on the other hand the Spanish public buyer getting access to a larger pool of bidders including those from Portugal much easier as they can submit bids through the Portuguese platform to a Spanish procedure as well. So we think this will greatly facilitate the internal market cross-border provision of procurement. This digital marketplace will thus be central to the proposal to the simplification it brings because again it brings the transparency and accountability that will allow us to reduce the administrative burden in the ex-ante procurement procedures.
Lastly, next slide please, and this is already the last slide, a main change in the act is to move away from price-only awards of procurement contracts to award criteria that consist of both price considerations and non-price quality considerations. We propose that the non-price considerations have to be at least 30% of the award criteria for all contracts, 50% at least for labor-intensive contracts. Within this, there is complete flexibility for public buyers to decide how to define quality. They can define quality in terms of, for example, social requirements, or green requirements, innovation requirements, buy EU requirements, or security and resilience requirements, or simply in terms of the functional characteristics or quality of the product, for example, they wish to purchase. So an obligation to consider quality criteria, but freedom as to how to define the quality criteria is the overall approach on what is then called BPQR, best price-quality ratio.
In addition, the act foresees a number of instruments to facilitate and enable green, social, innovation, etc. procurement by public buyers where they wish to do so.
Examples are on social requirements, a much demanded by stakeholders clarification that the working conditions and rights of the workers that perform a contract subject to procurement are what is called linked to the subject matter. That's the legal term. It means in practice they can be an award criteria. Or to support green procurement, the use of labels in order to be able to identify if a product meets certain requirements or not. With this, we believe again that we can achieve the overall objective of making procurement a more efficient investment instrument in the Union.
Thank you very much.
Christian Doleschal
Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Arnstein, for your, for the presentation of the Public Procurement Act. And now I will give the floor to any colleague who would like to make a comment or ask a question. You have maximum two minutes time per question or comment. We start with the EPP, with Tomislav Sokol.
Tomislav Sokol
Thank you very much, dear colleagues. So I welcome the fact that the Commission's proposal finally recognizes importance of European preference in public procurement. I think this is an important step forward, but it does not go far enough. The proposal allows contracting authorities to apply European preference, but it does not make it a general legal obligation.
In other words, we are saying that public authorities may give preference to European products and services. In strategic sectors, I believe we should be more ambitious. Public procurement represents around 15% of the European Union's GDP, approximately 2.5 trillion euros per year. This is not merely an administrative procedure. It is one of the most powerful economic instruments at our disposal.
And it matters where this money goes. When we spend European taxpayers' money, we should ask whether that spending strengthens European production, creates jobs in Europe, supports European innovation, and contributes to our economic security. We have already recognized this principle in the Critical Medicines Act, for which I was the rapporteur. There, we acknowledge that excessive dependence on production outside Europe can put our security of supply at risk and that we need to strengthen European manufacturing capacities. The same logic should also apply to Public Procurement Act.
We cannot talk about strategic autonomy and European competitiveness while remaining indifferent to where the goods and services purchased with European public money are produced. So yes, recognizing European preference is a welcome step. But now we need to take the next one. European preference should not merely be an option. It should become a legally binding principle.
Because European public money should strengthen European production, European competitiveness, and European resilience. And I think in a situation where we're being squeezed from both East and West, also where we're being pressurized by countries which employ unfair competition, where our industry is under extreme pressure and it has I would say maybe two or three years of opportunity to survive what's going on, we have to do to use European legislation to protect it as much as possible because this is not level playing field, this is not normal competition, this is geopolitical competition where every tool is being used and I think Europe should not be naive and we should use everything at our disposal to protect our industry. Thanks.
Brando Benifei
Gli appalti pubblici sono uno strumento straordinario per rafforzare gli ecosistemi industriali e promuovere innovazione e neutralità climatica. Nella proposta che la Commissione Europea ci presenta è positivo sicuramente il superamento del meccanismo del massimo ribasso a favore della qualità, ma questo non basta se i criteri sociali e ambientali restano facoltativi.
Serve perciò maggiore ambizione: no ai contratti pirata, più peso alla contrattazione collettiva, sì a clausole che tutelino i lavoratori nei cambi di appalto e sì alla responsabilità solidale lungo tutta la filiera. Bisogna poi intervenire sui subappalti a cascata, valutando una limitazione al primo livello. È importante l'inserimento della preferenza europea e dei requisiti obbligatori su efficienza energetica e circolarità, ma occorre fare di più per premiare le imprese che investono in salute, sicurezza e tecnologie green. Serve anche coerenza con l'Industry Accelerator Act affinché decarbonizzazione e Buy European procedano insieme. La scelta giuridica del regolamento, poi, non deve trasformare l'armonizzazione europea in un tetto invalicabile, determinando arretramenti rispetto alle tutele nazionali più avanzate.
Lavoreremo sul testo affinché le regole europee costituiscano una base senza impedire agli Stati di andare oltre, come avviene già oggi in alcuni Stati membri. Io ritengo che questo sia un punto assolutamente fondamentale per poter sostenere questo testo. Il confronto con le parti sociali, le autorità nazionali e locali e le associazioni sarà essenziale per rafforzare gli elementi positivi della proposta e intervenire sulle criticità. Non possiamo votare assegni in bianco. Grazie.
Joron, mais c'est pas grave.
Sorry.
Virginie Joron
Alors tout le monde l'attendait depuis des années, et je dois dire que c'est quand même un peu la déception. Je vais commencer par une petite critique : comment se fait-il que le texte ne soit pas disponible en français, ni dans toutes les langues d'ailleurs, alors qu'il est en anglais sur le site de la Commission depuis trois semaines ? Alors ensuite, un principe : quand l'argent est européen, l'emploi doit être européen, quand l'argent est français, l'emploi doit être français, cela devrait être la base. Dans les cantines scolaires, nous devons pouvoir manger local, s'approvisionner auprès de nos agriculteurs, de nos éleveurs. On voit encore toujours dans des marchés publics de l'agneau qui vient de Nouvelle-Zélande, et c'est inacceptable.
Merci.
Alors la question, on voit, on se retrouve avec ce texte avec des seuils toujours bas, sans exception locale, parce qu'un lord anglais l'aurait décidé pour nous il y a plus de trente ans quand il travaillait ici à Bruxelles. Alors oui, Airbus et Alstom accèdent à certains marchés, mais nous devons regarder cette réciprocité, et j'ajouterais réelle. L'industrie européenne s'inquiète des fausses réciprocités sous couvert de brevets à fournir, de tas de documents et remplir et autres notices imbitables en jouant la montre et la bureaucratie. Donc j'ai trois questions : quelles enquêtes ont été menées sur ces réciprocités ?
Expliquez-nous aussi ces 50 % de valeur européenne quand la Commission achète du cloud à Microsoft Irlande. Et pour finir, c'est très bien, vous avez parlé d'un règlement unique pour simplifier ces directives, mais est-ce que vous allez piloter, enfin en tout cas comment vous allez piloter ce dossier sachant qu'il y a déjà des États membres qui sont contre le règlement et qui préfèrent les directives comme notamment la France et l'Allemagne ? Je vous remercie.
Anna Cavazzini
Hi. So first off, I want to thank the Commission to come up with this proposal because we have been calling for a revision for like many years. And I think it's also great that we finally move away from the price-only principle and instead spend public money more smartly in the interest of our Union. And I'm also happy that we have this big digitalization and simplification push because as we know, public procurement procedures are very complicated.
So as we have seen, the heart of this reform is the shift to the best price-quality ratio. As we also know, today 60 to 80 percent of contracts still go to the cheapest bidder. Making quality criteria mandatory is one of the most important achievements of this reform, of the reform proposal, and I will personally also defend and strengthen it. For example, why is it only 30 percent? I think if we really want to make procurement more strategic, we need to wonder, like my S&D colleague, why did we not make social and green criteria completely mandatory?
Probably this is something the Commission can explain, because as we have seen, the best price-quality ratio can still be a lot of things, so strategic, innovative, and so on and so on. But I think if we really want to use our public money wisely, we need mandatory social and green criteria. I want to also flag subcontracting. I think leaving it up to the Member States whether to apply labor and social standards down the subcontracting chain is a step backwards from the current framework. I welcome the recognition of collective bargaining, that is a real progress, but we need, I think, conditionality, not just a list of good intentions.
On the EU preference, I have the feeling yes, a horizontal framework is useful, but as a standalone criterion disconnected from green and social conditions, it risks becoming a box-ticking exercise rather than a genuine industrial policy tool. So these are my first comments as shadow, I'm very much looking forward to working on the file with all of you. Thanks.
Hanna Gedin
Tack så mycket och tack för presentationen. Vi behöver ju ett robust regelverk och där har vi ett stort, stort ansvar för att se till så att lagstiftningen förbättras, därför det kan vi konstatera alla att den nuvarande lagstiftningen har lett till dumpning av löner och villkor och dessutom inte till ökad konkurrens, och den stora anledningen till detta är fokuset på lägsta pris, så jag välkomnar att man rör sig bort från det. I förra årets initiativbetänkande om offentlig upphandling så drev vi högre krav, bland annat skyddsåtgärder för likabehandling av arbetstagare, krav på kollektivavtal, en begränsning till två nivåer av underentreprenad, obligatorisk redovisning av underentreprenörer samt uteslutning av offentlig upphandling av entreprenörer som tar genvägar och utför slarvigt arbete.
Och vi kommer att fortsätta med detta arbete i och med publiceringen av den här Public Procurement Act. Våra prioriteringar är tydliga: att gå bort från enbart lägsta pris, att respektera kollektivavtal, att stärka övervakningen och tillsynen, att öka transparensen och se till så att det här inte leder till att man dumpar löner och villkor och standarder. Och därför så är min fråga till kommissionen här idag: European Preference nämns ju, men det är ju inte en verklig kvalitetsstämpel om den inte också kopplas till verkliga europeiska värderingar såsom höga sociala åtaganden, bra arbetsvillkor och höga miljöstandarder. Så jag undrar varför ni inte också driver på för tydligare krav när det kommer till upphandlare att ta hänsyn till de här aspekterna vid själva upphandlingen.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much. As former shadow rapporteur for the INI report on public procurement, I would like to raise a few points, and for that I want to switch to German. Zunächst vielen Dank für die Vorstellung des Vorschlags. Ich glaube, wir erleben wichtige Vereinfachungen, die wir ausdrücklich begrüßen, genauso wie die dringend notwendige Zusammenführung von mehreren Rechtsakten.
Entscheidend für mich ist, dass die Entlastung am Ende auch in der Praxis ankommt. Am Ende wird die Reform nur dann zu einem Erfolg, wenn wir schneller und einfacher werden in der Fläche und die öffentliche Hand am Ende deutlich handlungsfähiger wird. In dem Zusammenhang finde ich es wichtig und richtig, dass in Zukunft verschiedene Qualitätskriterien stärker berücksichtigt werden können. Es gibt viele Fälle, in denen es absolut sinnvoll ist und auch gewünscht ist, und dafür müssen wir den Anwendern rechtssichere Leitlinien zur Verfügung stellen, damit auch Qualitätskriterien angenommen werden. Ich halte aber eine Verpflichtung, dass wir hier aus Brüssel heraus sagen, es muss 30 % nach Qualitätskriterien ausgeschrieben werden, für zu viel.
Wir bekommen jetzt schon viele Rückmeldungen, insbesondere von kleineren Kommunen, die sagen, das ist zu viel. Wieso trauen wir unseren Vergabestellen nicht zu, selbst zu entscheiden mit klaren Richtlinien, wie Qualitätskriterien angewendet werden, und machen das nicht ohne Pflicht? Das ist der erste Punkt, und da auch meine Frage an die Kommission: Wie nehmen wir diese Befürchtung ernst, und wie können wir es schaffen, dass in Einzelfällen auch der Preis weiterhin eine Rolle spielen kann, wenn es eben vor Ort so abgewogen wird?
Und ein zweiter wichtiger Punkt tatsächlich ist das Thema der Schwellenwerte. Es wurde schon angesprochen, sie haben sich seit 30 Jahren nicht verändert. Ich hoffe, dass es uns zumindest gelingt, dass wir WTO-konform uns dafür einsetzen, die Schwellenwerte zu erhöhen. Ich habe ein Beispiel, und das ist zum Beispiel bei den Planungsleistungen, dass selbst der kleinste Kindergarten bei uns schon die Planungsleistungen europäisch ausgeschrieben werden muss. Und ich glaube, da sollten wir alles dafür tun, den Handlungsspielraum, den uns das GPA-Abkommen gibt, noch stärker zu nutzen, dass am Ende schnell und einfach ausgeschrieben werden kann.
Herzlichen Dank. And now I give the floor to the S&D to Pierre Jouvet.
Pierre Jouvet
Merci. Merci beaucoup. Moi aussi, en tant que rapporteur fictif sur le dernier rapport d'initiative sur les marchés publics, permettez-moi de revenir sur trois points précis. Tout d'abord, ce texte doit sortir de la simple logique du critère prix et donc du moins-disant. Ce critère prix du moins-disant écrase beaucoup de nos entreprises et fait beaucoup de mal à la logique même des marchés publics, et ce texte proposé par la Commission, de ce point de vue là, va dans la bonne direction.
Deuxièmement, conditionner davantage l'utilisation de l'argent public là aussi au respect du travail et surtout des travailleurs. Il ne peut souffrir d'aucune règle qui serait financée par l'impôt des Européens si ces règles n'étaient pas respectées. Et enfin troisièmement, et ça ne vous surprendra pas en tant que rapporteur pour l'Industrial Accelerator Act, faire des marchés publics une véritable préférence européenne. Ça a été dit et ça a été rappelé. Nos marchés publics sont un critère absolument essentiel pour permettre de flécher l'argent des Européens vers la réindustrialisation de l'Union européenne, vers plus de liberté et donc vers plus de souveraineté.
La règle de nos marchés doit devenir non seulement une règle, mais, et c'est ce pour quoi nous plaidons, une obligation. Faire de la commande publique ce levier pour la qualité, le progrès social, les salariés, la compétitivité européenne et aussi un accès facilité à nos marchés publics. Et de ce point de vue-là, je voudrais interroger la Commission pour savoir si vous pouvez confirmer que l'IAA notamment pourra rendre la préférence européenne obligatoire malgré l'alignement sur ce cadre facultatif que demande votre exposé des motifs et ce qui nous paraîtrait absolument essentiel. Je vous remercie.
Thank you very much.
Jeannette Baljeu
Thanks. Thank you. Thanks to the Commission for presenting the proposal. And I think that it is a good direction that the proposal's going into. The public procurement should be reward the best outcome for citizens.
I think this is all clear for us here. It's not simply the lowest price. And I think it's therefore that the price-quality ratio is a good starting point on in the proposal and is a very good step that we have a discussion on that and that there is a price-quality ratio. It gives public buyers more room to pursue strategic goals. I think the criteria are clear in that sense.
But there were some questions and I'm looking forward to the answers. And at the same time, it is also good that the criteria can fit the contract that needs to be done because all contracts are different and all products are different when it comes to public procurement. So price alone not as to be the decisive factor is a good thing. The balance is welcomed.
Then the European preference, also there very good that that is there. We see a discussion on more preference, European preference. I do see the balance that the Commission is making with the WTO and connections to international agreements. So looking forward as well on that comment from the Commission, the direction that they took. But it is important that we create more jobs and opportunities for our European businesses and create lead markets.
In that sense, I think there's still a little bit of discussion going to be going on. Then finally, simpler procedures are welcome. The proposal that is for SMEs more simplified, better database, incorporation with the databases that do exist. So I think that's a good thing. That's the right way to go.
So overall, we have to look at how we spend the public money and spend it wise for our citizens.
Many questions have been asked already, so looking forward to the comments of the Commission in that response and looking forward to work on the file with the rapporteur and fellow shadow rapporteurs. Thank you.
Katrin Langensiepen
I will speak in German. Herzlichen Dank an die Kommission für den Vorschlag. Ich komme gerade nach der Grünen Woche aus meiner Kommune, Hannover, einer sehr großen Kommune, und ich bin ehemaliges Ratsmitglied und wir haben immer mit solchen wichtigen Themen, wo geht das Geld hin, wo kommt das Geld her, für was setzen wir es ein, uns befasst. Wo geht das Geld hin? Ich glaube, das ist sehr, sehr wichtig und wie machen wir die EU, wie machen wir Europa in der Kommune sichtbar, dass es auch ein Verständnis dafür gibt.
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ist immer gut und schön und ich bin Mitglied und stellvertretende Vorsitzende des Arbeitsmarkt- und Sozialausschusses, ist alles richtig und gut, aber wir dürfen hier keine Verwässerung oder nur im Ansatz drohende Verwässerung von Sozialstandards erleben und hier kann ich zu viel soziales gelten als zu wenig.
Wir müssen hier sehr genau hingucken, natürlich keine überbordende, wie schon gesagt, für kleinere Kommunen Bürokratie, aber es darf auch keine Schlupflöcher entstehen, um Sozialstandards, die auch zu unseren europäischen Werten gehören, zu untergraben und daher wirklich noch mal mit Augenmerk mitgeben aus dem Sozialausschuss, aus dem Sozialbereich genau hingucken und werden Sozialstandards erfüllt, geschützt oder sogar angehoben, mehr kann da immer helfen. Ich bedanke mich und werde diese Verhandlungen und diesen weiteren Weg sehr genau beobachten. Herzlichen Dank.
Pablo Arias Echeverría
Thank you, Chair. I'm going to speak in Spanish. Muchas gracias. Bueno, se han hecho muchas preguntas y yo quería incidir en algunas. Lo primero, bueno, yo creo que esta es una propuesta que suena bien por parte de la Comisión, creo que es interesante y creo que es ambiciosa.
Sin embargo, también creo que hay que, aunque es un buen punto de partida, creo que hay que trabajarla y hay que trabajarla a conciencia.
Recordemos que cuando hablamos de contratación pública hablamos del 13 o el 14 % del PIB de la Unión y se habla de mejorar servicios, infraestructuras, etcétera, para el bien de los ciudadanos que son al final los que pagan la factura. Y por tanto, si estamos hablando de 2,5 billones de euros al año y de más de 250.000 autoridades públicas gestionando ese dinero o esas licitaciones públicas, debemos de buscar, como bien dice la propuesta, simplificar. Simplificar para ser mejores, para ser más competitivos y para que redunde en el ciudadano. Por tanto, me gustaría incidir primero en esto. Busca ser un reglamento y efectivamente ya se ha mencionado cómo se abordará esta posible oposición por parte de los Estados miembros a que esto sea un reglamento.
En segundo lugar, transparencia y rendición de cuentas. Contratación pública vemos que existen cuestiones de corrupción, de conflictos de interés y de procedimientos opacos y por tanto me gustaría saber cómo prevé la Comisión reducir estas malas prácticas en la aplicación de la legislación europea. En tercer lugar, hablamos de simplificación como una prioridad. Yo creo que esto debe estar especialmente enfocado a las pymes. Hay una complejidad regulatoria que sigue dificultando las compras también transfronterizas generando una carga de trabajo y costes administrativos inasumible.
No hemos oído hablar mucho de la inteligencia artificial en la propuesta. Automatizar procesos, analizar grandes volúmenes de información y mejorar la toma de decisiones en tiempo real podría ser una herramienta sin duda fundamental para proceder a esto.
En España, por ejemplo, hemos visto ayer publicadas sin ir más lejos ya iniciativas privadas que desarrollan con inteligencia artificial esa simplificación. ¿Qué papel tendrá la digitalización y sobre en concreto la inteligencia artificial para reducir la carga administrativa? Y ya termino, presidente, por último, la compra estratégica. Esta debe garantizar la calidad, la innovación y la protección de la propiedad intelectual. La propuesta establece que los criterios de calidad representen al menos el 30% de la puntuación.
Más allá de decir si estamos o no en contra de esto, me gustaría saber por qué se establece este umbral y cómo se aplicará en la práctica. Insisto, tenemos mucho trabajo por delante, la propuesta suena muy bien, pero hay que seguir y me gustaría que resolviesen estas preguntas. Muchas gracias.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much and now I give the floor last but not least to Mr. Schwab.
Andreas Schwab
Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Das öffentliche Vergaberecht ist wahrscheinlich der Gesetzgebungsrahmen, mit dem lokale und regionale Politiker am stärksten über die Europäische Union informiert werden, wo sie am stärksten mit Europa zu tun haben.
Und deswegen ist es wirklich gut, dass der Vorschlag der Kommission diesmal die Vereinfachung in den Mittelpunkt stellt. Das ist der Schlüssel, um Akzeptanz auf der örtlichen Ebene zu behalten. Denn wir sollten das nicht unterschätzen. Dort wird ja entschieden, was das beste Produkt ist. Dort wird ja die Straße in Auftrag gegeben.
Und die Kolleginnen und Kollegen auf der lokalen Ebene, die sind alle nicht blöd. Die wissen genau, was sie kaufen wollen. Und dafür müssen wir ihnen den besten Rahmen bieten. Trotzdem möchte ich an der Stelle nochmal sagen, der Maßstab, den wir hier setzen, der muss einer Beamtin, einem Beamten auf der unteren lokalen Ebene die Möglichkeit geben, einfach zu erkennen, was unsere Vorgaben sind. Der normale Beamte im Rathaus wird nicht die Lieferketten zwischen Europa und China einmal durchprüfen können oder irgendein Dokument, das im Absatz 17 auf der 15. Seite hinterlegt ist, durchblättern können.
Es muss einfach sein, dass die Vergabeprozesse schnell funktionieren. Denn wir haben es momentan vor allem damit zu tun, dass die Vergabeprozesse, insbesondere wenn EU-Vergaberecht eine Rolle spielt, einfach viel zu kompliziert sind und deswegen zu lange dauern. Und deswegen, Herr Vorsitzender, will ich zum Thema Vereinfachung und zum Thema Digitalisierung gar nichts mehr sagen. Dazu haben Sie, Herr Vorsitzender, dazu hat der Kollege Arias ja schon einiges gesagt.
Ich möchte mich gerne auf einen speziellen Punkt beziehen, der die Ausschreibung, der die separate Ausschreibung von Ingenieurleistungen bei Bauaufträgen auch unterhalb des Schwellenwertes von 5,5 Millionen vorsieht. Das war eigentlich nicht der Gedanke des Gesetzgebers, weil wir eigentlich auf der Basis des GPA gedacht haben, wir können den Kommunen bis zur Freigrenze von 5,5 Millionen die Freiheit lassen, die Sachen so auszuschreiben, wie sie wollen, nämlich nur nach nationalem Recht. Dann hat der EuGH irgendwann entschieden, dass die Ingenieurleistungen dafür aber separat ausgeschrieben werden müssen, wenn die dafür geltende Schwelle von 250.000 Euro, ich glaube so viel ist es momentan, erreicht ist. Das bedeutet aber, wenn ein Kindergarten um zwei Zimmer erweitert werden soll und die Wasserhähne verlängert werden müssen, dann ist immer der Schwellenwert von 250.000 Euro für die Ingenieurleistung erreicht. Und damit dauert es einfach zu lang.
Das Gleiche gilt für zwei Garagen bei der Feuerwehr. Einfach für den Anschluss von Kabeln und von Röhren brauchen wir eine Ausschreibung nach europäischem Recht für einen Ingenieur, der für diesen Betrag ohnehin aus der Region kommt. Und deswegen würde ich wirklich drum bitten, dass wir uns darauf verständigen, dass wir diese Ingenieurleistungen, soweit sie in einem Rahmen eines Bauauftrags von 5,5 Millionen liegen, dass wir die nicht separat ausschreiben müssen, sondern die Kommunen vor Ort aus einer Hand vergeben können. Es hört sich technisch an, ist aber glaube ich von erheblicher Bedeutung. Herzlichen Dank.
Christian Doleschal
Ja, vielen herzlichen Dank, Herr Schwab. Und jetzt gebe ich das Wort zurück an den Herrn Herrn Stein für die Beantwortung der Fragen.
Eigentlich waren fünf Minuten vorgesehen, aber wir haben noch ein bisschen Zeit, also gerne ausführlich und intensiv.
Henning Ehrenstein
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, dear honorable members, thank you for your questions and comments, which show that this is a very important and political subject, and many of the discussions here echo those that we also had inside the Commission. I try to block your questions and start on Buy EU, where the first question was why the Commission not propose making a European preference mandatory. So, the Public Procurement Act being a horizontal instrument that applies to all procurement and being complemented by sector-specific instruments, such as, for example, the Critical Medicines Act that the honorable member mentioned, makes us believe that for the horizontal instrument, the preferred basis is a voluntary approach that can then be complemented in specific strategic sectors, such as medicines, AI, or others, by mandatory specifications.
We in the Commission do not believe that automatically there should be mandatory Buy European provisions across all procurements, irrespective of whether they are in strategic sectors such as again medicines or AI or not. In terms of the practicality of Buy EU, I would refer to the access to market tool by the Commission that is already available but will be further developed together with the colleagues in DG TRADE and which gives public buyers visibility as to which products and which operators in which sectors from which third countries they may, if they so choose, discriminate against or not. I fully agree that otherwise this is not operational for public buyers on the ground. Turning to the question of BPQR and quality requirements. So we have proposed a balanced solution whereby the consideration of quality requirements is mandatory, but we leave the definition of the quality requirements to the public buyers.
This is part of the simplification, making procedures more flexible and returning the discretion and responsibility to public buyers that, as some of you have mentioned, know very well what investments or what services, what products they would like to purchase. We did not feel in the Commission that we are in a position to mandate and define for all hundreds of thousands procurements across Europe in a given year what exactly these quality parameters should look like, given also the variety of procurements. If you procure an airport scanner for a cargo terminal at a major airport, you may want to define quality in different terms than if you procure cleaning services for a public building in a large city. We believe public buyers are best placed to judge this, but they must be able to do it. And that is where we give them a lot of tools and legal clarifications that we believe will make a significant difference on the ground for them.
There is a lot of case law, for example, a lot of litigation that makes it in practice very difficult for public buyers to use social conditionalities. By giving these public buyers legal clarity as to what and how they can factor in, for example, working conditions of those workers performing a contract subject to public procurement, we believe in practice we're going to have a significant impact to further social requirements and conditionalities.
Coming in this context then to subcontracting, I do not believe that the Commission proposal goes back compared to the status quo, rather the opposite. We mandate transparency in subcontracting so that public buyers can monitor subcontracting chains and assess those as appropriate. We also prohibit 100% subcontracting of public contracts so that the main contractor and subsequent subcontractors each have to provide their own contribution and value to the project. And last but not least, this is one example where we allow Member States explicitly to go further in national legislation if they so wish. Turning to collective bargaining, I believe that one of the most important clarifications of the proposal is that it states that again the working conditions and also where they are defined, explicitly says this in the proposal, in collective agreement, these working conditions can be considered by the public buyer in the award criteria so that companies that are subject to collective bargaining cannot be disadvantaged over those that may not.
And we've had a lot of discussions with the social partners on this fact. It is very important, I would like to add, to ensure that the legal provisions are in line with the EU treaties and the freedom of social partners to agree collective agreements in line with national provisions. On the question of the thresholds, I confirm that they are set by the WTO GPA and that an amendment of those would require an update of this GPA agreement. We have included in the proposal a commitment to the Commission to ourselves to explore this possibility. On the SME dimension that was mentioned, that simplification must in particular support SMEs.
I'm very thankful for this question. This has been a very important consideration for us. And the marketplace in particular, but as well the simplification of the procedures, is designed to reduce the administrative costs to participate in public procurement.
These administrative costs for economic operators can, and often in the case of SMEs do, act as an entry to barrier to participation in these procedures. So if we reduce these costs, we would augment, we would increase SME participation. The proposal moreover has a number of SME-specific provisions, such as strongly encouraging public buyers to consider the lotting of calls for tenders, as well as to simplify the formation of consortia of companies that make a bid together, which was a key request by the SME community in the public consultation that led up to the proposal. On the question how to reduce corruption, we believe that the most efficient safeguard against irregular practice is transparency. So the marketplace and the obligation to carry out all procurements through the marketplace and to enter key data.
This is not about getting unnecessary data from everyone. This is about getting the key life cycle data to have AI instruments, big data analysis run through all procedures and then highlight to prosecutors, to auditors, high-risk transactions for in-depth analysis. And we believe that this transparency will be a very efficient tool to avoid irregularities in the first place. Thank you very much.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much for the answers and thank you all for this useful exchange. We are at the beginning of a fruitful discussion. The issue will require further examination as we continue our work on the proposal. Thank you all for contribution. And now we come to our next topic on our agenda and this is the presentation of the Affordable Housing Act.
The purpose of this exchange of views is to present and discuss the newly released Commission's proposal called Affordability Housing Act. Therefore, I would like to welcome Deputy Director General Matthew Baldwin from DG Energy for participating in this meeting. Thank you very much to take the time to present to us the Affordable Housing Act. And again, dear colleagues, please signal by hand if you would like to request to speak for a catch-the-eye exchange. We would then have Mr. Baldwin present the proposals, then members can make comments or ask questions that are responded to by him.
And I will now give the floor to Deputy Director General Matthew Baldwin for maximum 10 minutes.
Matthew Baldwin
Thank you very much, Chair. Good afternoon to you and to honorable members.
Indeed, Matthew Baldwin here from the Affordable Housing Task Force in the Commission, which has been set up to tackle the housing crisis. And thank you very much indeed for giving us an early opportunity to present the Affordable Housing Act, which we proposed on the 9th of September as part of our wider response to Europe's housing crisis. As I think it's the first time we've been in this committee to talk about the housing crisis, forgive me if I just say a couple of words about that. It will not be new to you or to honorable members. Across Europe, we face a persistent mismatch between housing demand and supply.
We see those pressures in terms of soaring rents in particular as particularly acute in many of our cities, but also in tourism hotspots and other high-demand areas. And these aren't abstract pieces of economic data. When we asked in a recent Eurobarometer poll, what are the big problems that you face, 51% of European citizens said that housing affordability is a big problem. And it's a big problem for, of course, the most vulnerable in our society, but no longer just for the most vulnerable.
For many Europeans, including young people and increasingly middle-income households, finding a home where they need it at a price they can afford has become extremely difficult. Policemen and women, nurses, social care workers, teachers can increasingly no longer find places to live in the communities they serve. And so it's a problem, as President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged in introducing this subject, if you like, in a coordinated way to the European Commission back in 2024. She said, if housing is a problem for Europeans, it needs to be a problem for Europe, or an issue for Europe. And last year in her State of the Union speech, she stressed she would come forward with legal proposals to tackle one of those aspects, short-term rentals.
And that's what I'm here to talk about. But I also want to pay tribute to this house, which has played a very important role in bringing this issue close to the top of the European agenda. And your work indeed has highlighted that there is no single solution to the housing crisis.
Turning to those solutions, the number one structural response set out in our affordable housing plan, which we delivered in December of 2025, must be on increasing housing supply, particularly thinking again of the most vulnerable. And that's really at the heart of our plan and of the different strands of work which are now underway on bringing investment and finance to the housing market, flexibilizing the rules on state aids, simplification, a huge strand of work which we're advancing and will bring to this house next year, construction capacity and productivity, and I'm sure you've had the chance to talk about that with colleagues from DG Grow, and last but not least, better use of the existing housing stock. So in coming forward with our Affordable Housing Act, it has two elements: a proposed EU regulation, and I'll come to that in just a moment, but also a recommendation, a Commission recommendation on housing affordability and supply, which draws on good practices from right across Europe, on the work of the European Parliament too, looking at practical ways we can advance on this issue: unlocking land, accelerating planning and permitting procedures, facilitating construction in all sorts of different ways, renovation, conversion, repurposing of buildings, bringing underused buildings back into use. These are areas where Europe can support, facilitate investment, and help spread good policy solutions and ideas. But I stress that word support.
Housing policy choices themselves remain national, regional, and local. This is not an EU power grab.
This is not the EU coming in and telling you how to run your housing policies. We also need to recognize that increasing supply in these stressed areas takes time. And in some already highly stressed housing markets, particular uses of our existing housing stock can aggravate those pressures in the meantime. And just again, dig down into some of those numbers. I think they tell quite a telling story.
In the last 10 years, rents have risen by 59% in Berlin, by 75% in Madrid, by more than 100% in Lisbon. And these numbers are driven by new pressures on the housing markets locally. And let me spell those out because that's what we're trying to tackle in the proposed EU regulation. Concentrations of short-term rentals. Concentrations of secondary homes, prolonged vacancies and other non-primary uses of housings.
In some parts of Europe, when we look at the data, the listings on just one simple short-term rental major platform exceeded more than 20% of the total dwelling stock. In Madrid, short-term rentals constitute nearly 40% of long-term rental stock.
And that set of pressures is provoking a set of reactions. Authorities right across Europe are responding to these pressures, and of course in areas where there is an existing important single market mechanism. Where national, regional and local authorities choose to restrict short-term rental services or place conditions or restrictions on the acquisition or use of property, those measures, we recognize in the Commission, can affect the freedom to provide services, the freedom of establishment or the free movement of capital, which if you like is the short version of why I'm here in this committee today presenting the Affordable Housing Act to you. But in other words, EU law already applies in these areas. The Court of Justice has already recognized that housing affordability and availability can constitute a public interest justification for restrictions on single market freedoms, provided that the particular measure is necessary and proportionate, concepts which will be of course well known to you in the IMCO committee.
But what is missing today from that principled framework is a sufficiently clear and operational framework if you are a national or local or regional authority applying such restrictions. Where and when are the housing pressures sufficiently serious to warrant limitations in those fundamental freedoms? How should an authority demonstrate that the activity it's trying to regulate is actually contributing to those short-term housing pressures that we see? And how does the authority demonstrate that its chosen response is necessary and proportionate? At the moment that can only be settled through litigation.
Those questions can only be answered through very broad treaty principles set out in the Services Directive and set out in the Court of Justice case law. That makes it difficult for authorities, it creates uncertainties for citizens and for businesses involved in this sector. It also means that measures adopted by public authorities are frequently subject to a whole series of legal challenges. In the case of short-term rentals, there's a well-established set of litigations culminating in one well-known landmark case, Cali Apartments, dealing with housing in Paris.
In respect of restrictions to freedom of establishment, freedom of capital, we have litigation going back to the 1990s. And these measures, therefore, are frequently being subject to legal challenge with important questions of justification and proportionality, which are not spelled out in detail in the Services Directive or in the Treaty, which are resolved through litigation rather than through a clear operational framework. And so that, honorable members, is the gap that the regulation seeks to fill. It does essentially two things. Firstly, it provides a common methodology for how to establish and evidence housing stress, giving a much more clear and objective basis for determining when housing affordability and availability can justify action affecting single market freedoms.
Secondly, it sets out common principles and requirements to demonstrate those principles I've mentioned already, necessity and proportionality, including evidence that the activity concerned has had a significant adverse effect. It needs to show appropriate targeting of the measure, and it needs to show that there has been due consideration of whether other less restrictive responses could be equally available.
I want to mention at this point a regulation well known to this committee, Regulation 2024/1028, which was passed only last year, gathering data for short-term rentals. And of course, that is well known to you and that will be an important building block in terms of data collection, giving very useful local evidence on short-term rentals and can be used alongside other indicators we set out in the proposed regulation in assessing housing stress and the effects on availability and affordability. But data which flows from 1028 cannot by itself provide a complete picture of the housing markets locally, particularly in relation to the specifics of local demand and supply. The framework therefore we set out in terms of the principles set out in the proposed regulation is again a principles-based framework. It does not prescribe a list of restrictions.
It does not tell cities or member states whether they should be regulating short-term rentals or second homes or vacant properties, nor does it confer new powers that authorities do not already have under national law.
Again, this is not the long-wagging finger of Brussels telling local authorities how to do their business. But what we are setting up very clearly is, I hope, that once those common single market principles and safeguards are met, the policy choices remain with the competent authorities, whether they be national, regional, or local. So that balance between the European and the national, regional, local is fundamental. Housing policy is national, regional, and local. Single market is of course European.
And our aim with this regulation is to make that difficult interface between the two clearer and more predictable, giving public authorities greater legal certainty where they need to respond to the genuine housing pressures whilst of course protecting citizens and property owners and businesses from discriminatory or disproportionate restriction. So to come back to what I was saying earlier, the two parts of the package which we've dubbed the Affordable Housing Act come together. The recommendation addresses the longer-term structural challenges in terms of the need to support greater housing supply, and the regulation provides a clearer framework for addressing demonstrable aggravating factors where authorities consider action to be necessary. Sorry if I slightly exceeded my time, Chair, but we really are looking forward to working very closely with the Parliament on that balance and very interested to hear your comments and questions. Thank you.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much for the information, and now I give the floor to Regina Doherty, maximum two minutes.
Regina Doherty
Thanks, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Baldwin, for not only attending here today but for the body of work that I know is being done by the Commission and the Commissioner. I have to say I note, and it might be just your personality, but I note that in a lot of, excuse me, what you've presented here today is more with an apologetic tone in so far as that you're stressing that we're not stepping on the toes of any national competency or any local municipality. And it's in regret more than anger I have to ask you, honest to goodness, when we have had so many statements from as high up as the President, the Commissioner, the President of this Parliament, major leading fields of the emergency crisis that exists right across Europe, why are we starting our legislative journey with tinkering around the edges of something that's less than 1.2% of the housing stock in Europe, won't build a single house, and in actual fact will cause problems for countries like my own who's gone much farther than what the recommendations advise here today in actually creating loopholes for us with regard to the legislation that we've already passed, instead of doing all of the things that you listed out in the beginning of your your contribution: increasing housing supply, investment, finance, simplification, state aid, construction capacity, all of the things that actually we have a competency over that we could simplify the regulation?
Instead of doing all of the things that you listed out in the beginning of your your contribution, increasing housing supply, investment, finance, simplification, state aid, construction capacity, all of the things that actually we have a competency over that we could simplify the regulations that cause houses to be built much slower in countries that need to be that cause houses not to be built because we don't have the finances because of either state aid rules or strict lending. Like I'm really at a loss to try and understand that if we all acknowledge the emergency that this is and by God it's an emergency in my country. Excuse me. Why are we starting our legislative journey tinkering around the edges of something that's actually hugely important to our tourism industry but you know would absolutely make so little difference if we changed and turned over an awful lot of these houses from short-term lets to long-term lets and actually concentrating on the things that we do have control over that would make a significant difference. And so I know you're probably going to tell me we're going to get to there and I really hope we do sooner rather than later but I'm just really trying hard to understand the rationale of starting off tinkering around the edges with something when we really have power in other areas and we're remiss in our actions.
Sorry Chair and thank you.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much and now I give the floor to Madame Grapini.
Maria Grapini
Mulțumesc, voi vorbi în limba română.
Vin de la altă dezbatere unde am reprezentat Comisia IMCO cu o audiere publică pe transport, turism, unde s-a discutat același subiect. Și vreau să întreb foarte tranșant. În primul rând, eu mulțumesc Comisiei că a explicat foarte bine cât poate să meargă Comisia, care-i sunt atribuțiile conform tratatului și cât este subsidiaritate, adică cine ce poate să facă. Pentru că dacă vrem doar așa să spunem un slogan, da, hai să facem mai mult, problema este cât poate Comisia să facă. Pentru că nu are atribuții imobiliare, nu are atribuții la prețul locuințelor în fiecare stat membru.
Asta este treaba fiecărui stat membru. Asta vreau de la bun început să spun, că asta s-a desprins și din dezbaterea de la transport, turism și IMCO de unde vin. Ceea ce însă vreau să vă rog să spuneți este, ați spus aici în prezentare o mai bună utilizare a caselor accesibile. Ce înțelegeți prin asta? Cum putem să facem o mai bună utilizare fără să încălcăm dreptul unui cetățean care are locuință?
Știți ce s-a auzit în țara mea? Că o să vină Comisia Europeană și o să le ia dacă are două case o casă și o să pună migranți. Adică haideți să explicăm foarte clar să nu creăm tensiuni suplimentare.
Deci ce ați înțeles dumneavoastră dacă puteți să-mi spuneți prin o mai bună utilizare a caselor accesibile? Ați spus că lipsește un cadru operativ. Eu vreau să vă spun că în dezbaterea cealaltă de unde vin s-a ridicat o problemă că nu sunt foarte bine definiți termenii în anumite reglementări și unul din ele este dacă chiriile pe termen scurt sunt un serviciu comercial sau nu. Pentru că dacă îl tratăm ca serviciu comercial este una și dacă nu este alta. Și închei spunând că din punctul de vedere și în urma dezbaterilor de acolo și al meu personal eu nu cred că trebuie să contraponem criza de locuințe cu faptul că avem închiriere pe termen scurt.
Este nevoie de o închiriere pe termen scurt, este nevoie de o dispersie în zone depărtate, de dezvoltarea turismului și nu cred că trebuie să le punem una împotriva celorlalte, dar mă interesează opinia dumneavoastră. Mulțumesc.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much and I now give the floor to Madame Chauron.
Virginie Joron
Merci Monsieur le Président, merci Monsieur de la Commission pour avoir présenté ce dossier. Nous partageons un même constat, trop de familles, trop de jeunes, trop de salariés n'arrivent plus à se loger dignement. Le loyer prend une part trop grande du salaire, l'achat devient un horizon lointain, c'est une épreuve quotidienne en France comme ailleurs en Europe. Votre proposition de règlement sur le logement abordable témoigne de cette préoccupation.
Nous en prenons acte. Mais le logement relève d'abord des nations, des régions et des communes. Un cadre européen même présenté comme un simple outil de sécurité juridique risque d'ajouter des procédures là où il faudrait de la liberté d'agir. Un maire connaît son territoire mieux qu'une méthodologie commune. Il doit pouvoir protéger l'habitat permanent sans attendre qu'on lui dise si la tension est suffisamment démontrée.
La France, elle, choisira une autre voie claire et responsable. On relancera la construction, les normes qui ne sont pas indispensables seront allégées, le foncier public sera mobilisé, les bureaux vacants seront transformés en logements, les communes redeviendront maîtresses de leur sol tout en préservant les terres agricoles. Nous sortirons de la logique des quotas qui sanctionne les élus sans produire un toit de plus. Et surtout nous valoriserons le parc existant, le diagnostic énergétique informera les ménages, il ne fermera plus le marché locatif. On sera aussi pour un prêt à taux zéro 100% rénov' qui accompagnera ceux qui veulent améliorer leur logement sans faire de la rénovation une course d'obstacles.
Nous encourageons l'accession à la propriété, nous faciliterons le crédit et sa portabilité, nous permettrons aussi à des locataires de HLM de devenir propriétaires de leur logement.
Les Français seront prioritaires pour leur parc social et les aides au logement, le droit de propriété sera défendu contre les occupations illicites. Sur la location courte durée, nous agirons là où elle déséquilibre la vie locale. Par contre, le tourisme pour que nos villes restent habitables toute l'année. Alors permettez-moi pour finir une seule question. Comment prétendre défendre le logement abordable tout en maintenant les règles nouvelles du pacte vert, obligation de rénovation, calendrier d'interdiction de louer, normes de construction toujours plus lourdes qui renchérissent malheureusement le neuf, sortent des logements du marché et pèsent d'abord sur les ménages modestes, allez-vous assouplir ces règles ou le règlement d'aujourd'hui devra-t-il cohabiter avec ces contraintes d'hier, je vous remercie.
Piotr Müller
Dziękuję bardzo. Szanowni państwo, bez wątpienia kwestie związane z mieszkalnictwem są niezwykle ważne i w wielu państwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej przecież podejmujemy działania, aby poprawić sytuację na rynku mieszkaniowym, między innymi też poprzez różnego rodzaju ograniczenia, jeżeli chodzi o najem krótkoterminowy czy poprzez zwiększenie podaży mieszkań.
Natomiast ja jednak w tej dyskusji dotyczącej regulowania na poziomie unijnym chciałbym wrócić do zasady subsydiarności, pomocniczości. Zaskakuje mnie, że Komisja Europejska w wielu kolejnych obszarach próbuje tworzyć własne regulacje, zamiast zastanowić się, czy aktualny zbędny bagaż różnego rodzaju regulacji nie tworzy przestrzeni właśnie do tego, aby ceny mieszkań były wyższe. Czyli krótko mówiąc, zastanówmy się nad dyrektywą budynkową, która powoduje, że koszty mieszkań w wielu obszarach zostaną zwiększone, nad systemem ETS, który powoduje większe koszty ogrzewania, czyli de facto większe koszty zamieszkania w wielu strefach europejskich. I tutaj szukajmy też odpowiedzi na to. Natomiast Komisja Europejska oczywiście powinna szukać wszelkich możliwości dotyczących zwiększenia skutecznego działania zasady jednolitego rynku, ale no naprawdę nie szukajmy sposobu na to, aby uregulować za państwa członkowskie czy samorządy kwestie związane z mieszkalnictwem i o to tylko apeluję.
Naprawdę mamy tyle innych rzeczy do zrobienia w Unii Europejskiej, że nie musimy w każdy obszar wchodzić regulacjami na poziomie unijnym. Dziękuję bardzo.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much, and I give the floor to Madame Langensiepen.
Katrin Langensiepen
I will be speaking in German. Wir haben natürlich alle gerade an diesem Wochenende verfolgt, was in Madrid passiert. Da ist eine ältere Dame nach 70 Jahren aufgrund einer Mieterhöhung von über 200 Prozent aus ihrer Wohnung geworfen worden, vor laufenden Kameras. Seitdem gehen die Menschen in Madrid auf die Straße.
Ich glaube, irgendwann ist auch mal das Fass voll, das Maß ist voll. Und wir können uns hier nicht rausreden, wir haben hier keine Kompetenz. Bürgerinnen und Bürger in der Europäischen Union haben mehr und mehr Angst und Sorge um ihre Wohnung, um ihr kleines Zuhause. Das ist die ältere Dame, das ist die Studierende, das ist die Familie. Da können wir alle europäischen Bürger hier mitnehmen.
Das ist nicht nur ich wohne, ich wohne umschlossen von Beton, sondern das ist mein Zuhause. Das kann ich nicht nach 50, 60 Jahren einfach verlassen. Und es hilft auch nicht, dass es dann immer wieder heißt, dann müssen wir die Standards senken beim Bauen. Denkmalschutz, richtig. Barrierefreiheit wurde vergessen.
Wir sind eine alternde Gesellschaft, ein alternder Kontinent. Wir haben mehr und mehr Menschen in der Europäischen Union, die auf Barrierefreiheit angewiesen sind. Wann hören wir auf, die Großinvestoren hier zu schützen? Und meine Vorrednerin hat es gesagt, die Kommission hat am Ende des Tages Schiss, hier Menschen auf die Zehen zu treten. Wie lange noch?
Wie lange noch reden wir um den heißen Brei und sagen, Wohnen ist wichtig, Wohnraum, bezahlbarer Wohnraum, das tigert ja nun schon seit Monaten, seit Jahren durch das Europäische Parlament, aber wenn es dann mal ans Machen geht, ja oh Gott bloß nicht.
Die Privatwirtschaft, ein scheues Reh. Wir werden aber nicht von der Privatwirtschaft gewählt, und das sind auch nicht diejenigen, die uns gewählt haben im meisten Fall. Und auch Privatwirtschaft und Investoren werden nicht obdachlos. Wir haben gesagt, die Europäische Union muss Obdachlosigkeit bis 2030 beenden. Na dann mal tau.
Und wir müssen hier auch unsere Kommunen vor Ort unterstützen, finanziell, dass sie das auch umsetzen können. Also ich erwarte hier von der Kommission weitaus mehr und freue mich auf die zukünftige Zusammenarbeit. Herzlichen Dank.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much. And now I give the floor to Madame Chaibi.
Leila Chaibi
Oui, merci Monsieur le Président. Moi je suis membre de la commission IMCO bien sûr, et puis également membre de la commission logement, et donc contente qu'on démarre le travail sur ce sujet. C'est vrai qu'il faut dire que ça a été une bonne nouvelle quand l'Union européenne a annoncé qu'elle allait faire un plan d'action sur le logement.
Malheureusement, depuis les différentes prises de position et initiatives prises par la Commission européenne nous ont montré que c'était plus un plan d'action en faveur des banques, des lobbies de la construction, des lobbies de l'immobilier qu'en faveur des mal-logés, qu'en faveur des sans-abris. Et donc ce qu'il faut saluer dans cette proposition d'Affordable Housing Act, c'est que pour la première fois depuis un an et demi, deux ans, enfin depuis la première fois que la Commission européenne a annoncé ce plan d'action sur le logement, pour une fois on admet que le problème c'est le marché. Parce que qu'est-ce qu'il dit ce Affordable Housing Act ? Il dit que les règles du marché empêchent les villes, les collectivités, les États de réglementer les locations de courte durée parce qu'il y a des villes comme par exemple la ville de Paris qui veut réglementer Airbnb. Airbnb dit : "Oh non non, attention, c'est contraire à la directive aux règles du marché et à la directive sur les services", même s'ils ont perdu à la fin.
Et donc ça dissuade les collectivités d'agir. Donc d'abord ça valide notre analyse sur le fait que le marché est le problème et pas la solution contrairement à ce qu'on entend beaucoup. Donc c'est positif. Par contre, moi j'ai des questions Monsieur Baldwin. Vous avez répété plusieurs fois que les propositions étaient relevées de la nécessité et de la proportionnalité.
Alors peut-être que c'est pour le besoin de rassurer la droite de notre hémicycle et de ce Parlement qui bon voilà malheureusement a la majorité. Mais moi je m'interroge sur les critères justement qui justifient l'état de nécessité et de proportionnalité. J'ai l'impression qu'ils sont très très très restrictifs ces critères. Il faut prouver notamment que dans les trois ans qui viennent la situation va pas s'arranger pour prendre un seul critère. Il y a un certain nombre de critères.
Qu'est-ce qui se passe si ces critères sont pas remplis ? D'abord, comment ils sont formellement remplis ? Il est question d'une autorité. Cette autorité, est-ce que vous pouvez nous en dire plus sur cette autorité qui valide le fait que la zone qui veut réguler est dans un état de stress lié au logement ? Est-ce que c'est la Commission européenne qui vérifie si ces critères sont remplis ?
Est-ce que c'est l'autorité ? Pouvez-vous nous en dire plus ? Et donc, question qui se pose, c'est qu'est-ce qui se passe si les... et je termine juste là-dessus s'il vous plaît, les critères sont pas remplis ? Moi, j'ai une crainte qui est d'ailleurs soulevée par d'autres associations, c'est que ça prive des villes de leur capacité à agir. En fait, si demain la Commission européenne me dit : "Les critères sont pas remplis", est-ce que ça m'empêche de légiférer Airbnb ?
Il y en a un certain nombre ici qui ont une adresse pour transformer l'or en plomb. Et moi, j'ai peur que cette proposition qui vise à réguler Airbnb, au final, empêche de réguler Airbnb parce qu'on vous dit : "Non, vous n'êtes pas considérés comme une zone tendue et donc vous n'avez pas le droit de légiférer." Est-ce que vous pouvez nous rassurer, Monsieur Baldwin, sur ce point ? Merci.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much. And now I will give the floor to the two last speeches, Sebastião Bugalho and Tomislav Sokol.
Sebastião Bugalho
Thank you, thank you very much chair, I'll speak in Portuguese. Eu tenho que dizer, com todo o respeito, que acaba por ser um pouco irónico que no que diz respeito às matérias de habitação e à comissão de habitação, que muitas vezes nos vejamos a incorrer no mesmo paradoxo ou na mesma ironia, que é legislamos quando não temos competências, queremos construir quando não temos dinheiro para construir e hoje até quisemos fazer um debate sem termos membros para esse debate na grande maioria do tempo em que os representantes da Comissão, cuja presença eu cumprimento, estiveram presentes na sala, havia sete membros do PPE da comissão de habitação ou da comissão do mercado interno e zero membros do Partido Socialista Europeu. Não deixa de ser paradoxal tendo em conta que esta comissão é uma iniciativa do Partido Socialista Europeu, mas nós estamos contentes e satisfeitos com certeza em fazer o debate entre nós se for necessário.
Mas as perguntas têm que ver, as minhas perguntas têm que ver com o futuro da resolução deste problema. E eu pergunto porque é que foi dada prioridade a uma lei da habitação acessível que identifique zonas de stress habitacional nas cidades, quando a própria Comissão reconhece que não tem competências para interferir, portanto a consequência, que é o aumento da oferta, pode ser nulo. Esta lei da habitação acessível pode gerar zero casas para os cidadãos europeus e não foi dada prioridade à simplificação administrativa e à desburocratização que o próprio Comissário prometeu. Porque é que não se fez um ato para a simplificação administrativa no que diz respeito ao mercado da habitação e ao setor da construção? Porque é que esperamos até 2027 para só entrar em vigor quiçá na próxima legislatura?
É uma pergunta que eu deixo e termino perguntando ao representante da Comissão, a quem mais uma vez agradeço a presença, se o apoio técnico e financeiro que é referido na proposta legislativa da Comissão, quando é que poderemos vê-lo quantificado? Isto é, falam em apoio técnico e financeiro, mas não dizem quanto dinheiro é que vai ser. Muito obrigado.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much, and if it's okay, we have another two last speeches, Tomislav Sokol and Dirk Gotink.
Tomislav Sokol
Thank you very much, I'll try to be brief. So definitely housing has become one of the big problems in the EU. Since 2010, housing prices have risen by more than 60% and rents by almost 30%. And average age of people leaving their homes is 26, while for instance in my country in Croatia it's 31. So it is a big problem that we need to try to solve.
On the other hand, it's true that this is primarily national competence, so EU can only support national policies.
So what we have on the table to be honest is pretty weak. So these are measures which, so we are limiting things, we are restricting public property and private property and we are actually, we are giving the local authorities the power that in most cases they already have. So I think that this is restricted, this is very limited and it will not solve the problem. The only thing what we can do is two things. So first we need to provide sufficient flexibility in EU financial instruments so that member states can fund housing construction programs, particularly for young people.
So we need to use cohesion policy and other instruments to give flexibility for member states if they wish to use these funds to build new homes, that they can do it. And second, we need to cut all of this red tape which is not obviously part of this legislation, from environmental rules, energy efficiency rules etc., so that we actually make it possible and make it easier for new homes to be built. So to sum up, without real increase in supply we will not be able to lower prices and I think this proposal does not go, will not solve the problem. Thanks.
Dirk Gotink
I would like to thank Mr. Baldwin for his elaborate and eloquent contribution to this meeting. I think you were also there when we had the House Committee meeting, and this sounds a bit like an echo of what was, what happened at that meeting. Now, one of the key issues that people, I hear cities talking about, is this issue of the principal residence. Is that you, you make it impossible for any regulation of short-term rentals on the principal residence. However, many, many cities in Europe have built their policy on that, on that principal residence.
In Amsterdam, you cannot do short-term rentals from anything else but your principal residence. So, yes, there is a grandfathering clause, or how do you call it, that it, that you can keep existing legislation, but in fact you freeze the law now because you can't change, if you change you have to comply with this law. Why did you do this? And even cities like Paris are now, have now a problem with this, and Amsterdam and many other cities. And secondly, could you please elaborate, because you hear that this committee is asking for simplification of building rules.
And could you please elaborate also on your plans coming in January in terms of the simplification package, because this will be a very difficult sell in the European Parliament, and especially in the EPP, and you would help us a lot with some positive news from January.
Thank you very much.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much for the whole questions and now I give the floor to Mr. Baldwin to the responding.
Matthew Baldwin
Thank you very much indeed. It's a pleasure to be in IMCO and to begin with, I'm rarely accused of having an apologetic tone. Polite, I think was the phrase I would try to express. But seriously, I do hear what you say. You ask whether we are tinkering at the margins by addressing a fact that which only covers 1.2% of the housing stock.
When I look at the the numbers again applying at a local level. I mean, somebody once said all politics is local and certainly all housing needs to be looked at through a local prism. Just on short-term rentals, those numbers are very high. I mentioned the the 20% figure of some platforms and in Madrid the figure 40%.
And again, this isn't the Commission there saying, right, so we're going to insist that all these areas are regulated or restricted, but we are trying here to support those authorities or indicate more, give more clarity to those authorities who are looking to act and provide more legal certainty for everyone involved. On the question of loopholes in Irish regulation, and I think this is a point that came up again and again, what will be the impact be on existing legislative schemes that exist to address short-term rentals? And the last speaker mentioned that indeed there are grandfathering rules. Those are very important. Existing measures will not be affected.
If you wish to maintain those measures that you have in place, you may continue to do so. If you wish, by the way, to take restrictions for grounds other than affordability, and again I hear from Amsterdam, for example, that they wish to restrict for broad environmental reasons or for noise reasons, again you can continue to do so under the Services Directive. This sets out or codifies restrictions to be taken on grounds of affordability. And I think that's an important point. Secondly, I've heard from a number of different speakers saying, why are we not getting on with supply?
Well, firstly, we are getting on with supply, and that's why I think I was at pains, perhaps this was my apologetic tone again, pains to point out what we are setting out in the recommendation, the Commission recommendation, which squarely addresses those questions of supply head-on. And I won't repeat the areas.
But this is fundamentally a question of competence. It is a recommendation because the member states and the regions and the cities have the legal powers on supply. Is anyone really telling me here that they would stand up and call for a Commission regulation on zoning restrictions or in any of these areas? I don't believe so. And certainly that's not what I'm hearing from the member states.
And anyway, that's irrelevant because we don't have the powers under the treaty to do so. And it is important that we need to respect subsidiarity in everything that we do and starting with that point. I think it is also important, and I think this is another point that I've heard consistently, the implication that we are sort of stepping in and telling authorities when they need to act. No. This is not the Commission deciding what are the right moments or the areas in which we think local authorities should be acting.
It's reflecting the fact that authorities are acting. And they are looking to take action.
And they have asked us for more clarity. And I hope we are giving that, not by providing a great long list, a so-called white list of specific things you're allowed to do or indeed even a black list of specific things you're not allowed to do, but spelling out the principles, the good single market principles that this committee knows so well, and by the way providing more safeguards than exist at present for those that are concerned. We don't think those safeguards will unduly restrict good legitimate restrictions, but it will also provide I think a degree of reassurance for those who are worried about it. The connection to tourism, Madam, you mentioned the debate which you've been at, it's been a short-term rental afternoon here in the European Parliament, my colleagues have just come from that as well. And if my Commissioner were here, someone was kind enough to say I was the Commissioner, I am not, but if he were here he would be at pains to stress the linkage between the good linkage between short-term rentals and tourism.
We recognize that there are many good reasons why people want to rent out their apartments. It sometimes can make the difference between being able to make your monthly rent to be able to rent out that room or to rent it out for a couple of weeks in the summer. All of that is is really fine and we're not trying to say that short-term rental is some kind of mortal sin, that is not at all the intention.
And again, it comes back to the point raised by by our last speaker today, why have we made clear that you we don't believe you should be placing restrictions on your principal residence? Firstly, the if you're doing short-term rentals on your primary residence, crucially that is not withdrawing that property from the housing market. That's not meaning it doesn't mean that an additional flat could be on on the market for affordable rental. Secondly, it simply reflects the fact that under the European Court's big landmark case, Cali Appartements, that indeed they said that short-term rentals from a primary residence should not be restricted for precisely that reason. And therefore, I think it it's important that we we do that.
We have looked very hard at the Cali Appartements case and to a great extent we are trying to codify what the what the court has has decided in in that respect. Lastly, and again I think this is important, I want to underline you can restrict for other reasons for affordability, a point I've already made. Under the Services Directive, you can continue to to make those restrictions. I've heard a lot about the the need for simplification. And I'm not here today to describe to you our in detail our our package on that, but we are hard at work.
We have a team in the housing task force working closely with colleagues from across the commission, which is beginning with a very extensive mapping of all European legislation that could have an impact. I think I'm right in saying we've now looked at more than 60, 6-0 pieces of of European legislation. And we will indeed be coming with a package. I think that was confirmed in the accompanying documents to the President's State of the Union speech just a week or so ago in the first half of of next year. And we'll try to keep anyone that's interested, and we know this house is very interested in our work as as we proceed.
That all said, I don't want you to believe that we can simply get at the issues addressed in the simplification package, i.e. the restrictions that are being placed on housing supply, simply by addressing European legislation. Indeed, a number of member states themselves have reacted positively to this. They're using our initiative to look themselves at the restrictions that have been placed in national legislation and local and regional legislation as well. And so it is very important that we try to find a good balance between what we propose on simplification as an accompanying as an accompanying set of set of ideas. It is important, by the way, that you look at the affordable housing act as a simplification measure itself.
Let me give you just one example of that. Under the Services Directive, if you want to take restrictions, you are obliged to make a notification under single market rules, which is heavy and it's burdensome and it takes time. With our proposals, we do away with that notification. You are required to publish those measures, but as somebody else asked, does this mean then that there's no restrictions, local authorities can do what they like? Not at all.
Single market laws, European laws continue to apply. It would be a strange set of rules that said you are now immune from legal challenge. We strongly believe that with the greater clarity set out in our proposals, there will be much less need for litigation, but those, that right, of course, needs to remain. But I do want to reassure that there will be no new super-authority coming into play to look over local authorities' shoulders and say, this is what you're allowed to do and this is what you're not allowed to do. And if the criteria are not met, the question you asked, does this mean that I can't regulate again?
No, if you want to regulate on other grounds than affordability, you can continue to do so. And I hope that provides a good degree of reassurance for local authorities who've also posed to us the same questions.
In terms of technical support, we set out, I think, reasonably clearly under our proposals that we'll be providing the key data for all 27 countries through Mapadomo, and that should be available during the course of this year. But in terms of additional technical support, we've only just begun our work on this, our discussions with member states and regions and cities, and we'll be closely trying to identify what needs they have and how we can provide that additional support. Lastly, on the question of flexibility in cohesion funds and how we can support housing that way, I would just draw your attention to the fact that there was a very effective mid-term review of cohesion funds carried out over the course of last year, including allowing authorities to reprogramme funding for issues such as housing. And there was a good take-up, which is remarkable given how much had already been programmed. So I think there is an appetite to put more financial and funding support into housing.
And we hope to see that in the future as member states start to develop their national and regional partnership plans. Social affordable housing is now a specific objective of the NRPPs, and we very much hope that that will be taken up, although of course I cannot prejudge the ongoing negotiations on the MFF, which is a traditional way in which I think people in the Commission end their presentations in the Parliament.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much.
Yeah, thank you very much for the interesting answers. And also I want to thank for the constructive discussion. Thank you for your valuable contributions. They will help us our further work on this file. And now I will come to our next points, the consideration of amendments and compromise amendments on the Cybersecurity Act 2.
I would like to recall that this opinion is being considered under the simplified procedure with the vote scheduled for the 15th October. Ms Maria Gousenina is the IMCO rapporteur. ITRE is the lead committee on this file. IMCO is providing an opinion under Rule 57 and BUDG will provide a budgetary assessment under Rule 58. The proposal which was presented by the Commission on 20th January in this year aims at aligning the Union cybersecurity framework with the needs of stakeholders in an increasingly sophisticated cyber threat landscape.
593 amendments were tabled in the IMCO. And I would first like to give the floor on behalf of the rapporteur to Ms Schaldemose for maximum five minutes. And I ask the colleagues to be a bit quiet.
Thank you very much.
Christel Schaldemose
Thank you very much for this, and Ms. Gazzanini apologizes for her absence, and I will read her statement. So the Commission's proposal on ENISA, the European Cybersecurity Certification and ICT Supply Chain Security, aims to modernize the Union's approach to a rapidly changing threat landscape. The rapporteur welcomes this approach and proposes targeted improvements to build a high and unified level of security for every Union citizen. Her overall objective for the IMCO opinion is a clear and predictable framework that guarantees a high level of cybersecurity for consumers and businesses across the Union, remains proportionate for small businesses, and safeguards fundamental data and privacy rights. The reasons for action are clear.
Threats are evolving fast.
Artificial intelligence is already increasing the speed, sophistication and scale of cyberattacks, and quantum computing may create new risks in the years ahead. Against this background, the rapporteur has proposed making European cybersecurity certification framework a mandatory one rather than a voluntary one. This would ensure a higher level of security, support the functioning of the internal market and strengthening trust among consumers and businesses. At the same time, certification requirements should remain proportionate, taking into account both the size of the organization and the level of risk involved. The framework should also ground itself on principles of security by design and privacy by design, including the ENISA standardization work.
Certification schemes involving personal data must fully comply with the GDPR and minimize the amount of personal data processed. Cloud services as a distinct and higher-risk technology deserve particular attention. The identification of key ICT assets and mitigating measures must take into account the Union cloud sovereignty framework and remain consistent with the relevant European certification schemes.
Risk assessments should specifically consider data confidentiality, operational autonomy, continuity of services and exposure to third-country legal or administrative measures. The rapporteur also aims to ensure that security does not become a privilege of the largest players alone. Certification fees should therefore be proportionate and transparent, particularly for SMEs, so that they do not become a barrier to market access. Negotiations are now underway and the first shadows meeting is scheduled for this Wednesday. On Ms. Guezunina's behalf, I would like to thank colleagues for the collaborative spirit they have shown so far and the rapporteur looks forward to maintaining that spirit throughout the negotiations ahead.
Thank you very much.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much. And now I would like to give the floor to the shadows for maximum two minutes and we start with the EPP with Mr. Ciodros.
Dimitris Tsiodras
Thank you very much, Chair. The review of the Cybersecurity Act is a key element of strengthening the EU's resilience to cyber threats and ensuring citizens and businesses benefit from trustworthy digital technologies. My amendments aim to improve the proposal in the following ways.
First, they strengthen ENISA's mandate and role to continue its great work in safeguarding the EU's cybersecurity. For this very reason, I have proposed the establishment of testing laboratories in order to enhance ENISA's possibility to provide expert advice to the Commission on emerging technologies such as AI frontier models. Secondly, when it comes to the European cybersecurity certification scheme, my objective is simple. European certification must take market realities into account. Therefore, my amendments aim to improve businesses' and in particular SMEs' involvement in the preparation of the schemes as well as bring clarity about their validity.
Third, on ICT supply chain security, my amendments have a clear target to ensure a better institutional balance when it comes to the different assessments of high-risk countries and suppliers and that these assessments are based on objective and robust evidence. After five technical meetings and ahead of the political negotiations this week, a few political issues require further discussion.
First, European certification schemes should be in principle voluntary and focus on technical requirements. In addition, the ICT supply chain security assessment should be made through an implementing act, enabling the co-legislators to scrutinize the proposed act. Finally, we should align the amount of penalties with the ones in other pieces of EU digital legislation, whilst keeping their dissuasive character. I look forward to continue working constructively to reach an agreement on a European cybersecurity framework that is effective, proportionate and workable. Thank you.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much, and now I will give the floor to Mr. Posnaks from the ECR.
Reinis Pozņaks
Thank you, Chair. So we strongly support the objective of de-risking critical digital infrastructure.
However, our key priority is to ensure that any measures targeting high-risk technology suppliers remain objective, transparent, and evidence-based, accompanied with predictable transition periods to protect business continuity and market competitiveness. It is crucial to support amendments that keep certification schemes strictly voluntary unless specifically mandated by Union law. Particular attention should be paid to safeguarding Member State competences over national security, avoiding excessive administrative red tape for SMEs, and preventing duplicative regulatory overlaps. The aim of this legislation should be to strengthen Europe's cybersecurity posture while maintaining a pro-business environment that does not create unnecessary hurdles for industry. One aspect that still needs to be clarified is related to the interference from third countries, which can be an ambiguous wording and can be targeted against some EU strategic partners.
So, here we will need to propose the alternative text for clarification. Thank you and looking forward for cooperation.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much. And now we'll give the floor to Madame Stefanuca, Deputy Director from the Commission.
You have the floor.
Lorena Stefanuca
Thank you very much and thank you very much also from the European Commission side for the support for the proposal that the Commission have put forward for the revision of the Cybersecurity Act, for sharing the cybersecurity policy objectives. The main purpose of this proposal is indeed to make the cybersecurity framework even more agile and market-adapted and more efficient when it comes to the mandate of the EU Cybersecurity Agency, ENISA, but also when it comes to the efficiency of the certification framework and of course when it comes to supply chain security to ensure that we have all relevant instruments in place to address technical and non-technical risks when it comes to security of supply chain. Maybe just to say very briefly on some of the points that have been raised, indeed currently certification is as a rule voluntary, cybersecurity certification according to the European Cybersecurity Certification Framework. Nevertheless, various acts allow potential mandating of certification in a proportionate and targeted way when certain criteria are met.
For example, we have this possibility in the Cyber Resilience Act, there are also other acts that provide this possibility. So just to say that up front, it is important for certification to also be a market-driven tool and to take into account also the burden that it may bring on entities if one is to mandate from the onset all sorts of cybersecurity certification for all possible uses. So the CSA 2 also preserves the current take of the ECCF as it is in the cybersecurity act today, meaning as a rule voluntary, but with the possibility in a targeted and proportionate way to mandate for specific uses. So that would be important for proportionality and a risk-driven approach and also for an approach which would support the functioning of the internal market. We take the point and it's indeed very important that we have a very good interplay clarified with other relevant acts and this is what is ensured with a number of acts which are also at the proposal stage, so following a co-decision process like the one concerning cloud and AI development act where interplay are established also with the framework for cybersecurity act including the certification framework, but also with other acts which are already in force like the AI Act.
So we are more than happy to provide any further clarifications in the discussions that the co-legislators will have when it comes to interplay of of these particular acts. Also to say that we fully share the objective of ensuring also support for SMEs in the take-up and compliance efforts with the existing cybersecurity frameworks and the one that that we put forward. So we absolutely share this this objective and with the frameworks that we already have in place and also proposals that we put forward we believe that we can achieve that. So overall just to to thank again for for the work undertaking so far, to to say that the Commission will of course support the the co-legislative process. We are here also to provide further clarifications and again grateful for the support for the objectives of the CSA2 proposal put forward by the Commission.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much, and sorry I gave you the wrong position. And now we came to the next point. Yeah, our next point is the consideration of amendments and compromise amendments on the directive amending the NIS2 directive as regards simplification measures and alignment with the CSA2.
The opinion is being considered under the simplified procedure with the vote scheduled for the 15th October. It covers simplification measures alignment with the proposal for the Cybersecurity Act 2. Mr. Henrich Dahl is IMCO rapporteur for this opinion. ITRE is the lead committee on this file, IMCO is providing an opinion under Rule 57 and BUDG will provide a budgetary assessment under Rule 58. 91 amendments were tabled and I would first like to give the floor to the rapporteur Mr. Henrich Dahl for maximum five minutes.
Henrik Dahl
Thank you, Chair. On the NIS 2 file, we have held one technical meeting so far. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank colleagues for their constructive contributions. They have helped us a lot to make good progress on the draft compromises. The draft compromises are taking shape around three main aims.
One, to have clearer rules on which entities fall within scope. Two, to have more proportionate requirements, especially for SMEs.
And three, less duplicate reporting and better alignment across the cybersecurity framework. We will continue working on the text in writing ahead of the shadows meeting on Wednesday, and I hope we can resolve the remaining political points together then. Thank you.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much. And now I would like to give the floor to the shadows, but I think nobody's in the room. Or then I ask if there's any other member wishing to take the floor. Also not. Then I would like to give the floor to Madame Stefanu.
Lorena Stefanuca
Thank you very much. When it comes also with the NIS2 amendments that are proposed in a package with the CSA2, the main objective of these amendments is indeed to facilitate compliance, also learning from the experience that we've already seen on the ground with the transposition and efforts for implementation of NIS2.
So we very much appreciate also the support for the simplification objectives, because with the amendments put forward that go also hand in hand with the Commission proposal on the digital omnibus when it comes to single entry point for reporting concerning several pieces of legislation including NIS2, but also other proposal in NIS2 amendments that would facilitate harmonization across the board in the internal market, we really believe that those are very targeted but necessary amendments to make it easier for businesses to comply with NIS2 while providing also some clarifications on the application of NIS2, but also as I said a higher harmonization level of how these measures are implemented across the board of the internal market, so to have also the benefits on the cybersecurity objectives being reached more effectively. Thank you very much.
Christian Doleschal
Thank you very much, Henrik, you have the opportunity for your closing remarks, do you want?
Christian Doleschal
Thanks a lot, and now we come to the last point. The next meeting will take place on 15th October here in Brussels. Thank you dear colleagues to participate in today's IMCO session, have a great evening.
Speaker 41
Bonjour à tous. Bienvenue à cette réunion de la commission IMCO. Nous allons commencer par l'adoption de l'ordre du jour. Est-ce qu'il y a des commentaires sur l'ordre du jour ? Non.
L'ordre du jour est adopté. Ensuite, les communications de la présidence. L'interprétation est disponible dans les langues suivantes : allemand, anglais, français, italien, néerlandais, danois, grec, espagnol, portugais, finnois, suédois, tchèque, estonien, letton, lituanien, hongrois, maltais, polonais, slovaque, slovène, bulgare, roumain et croate. La réunion est retransmise en ligne. Les députés sont invités à utiliser l'application eMeeting pour accéder aux documents de la réunion.
Le bulletin d'information mensuel de la commission IMCO est disponible sur le site web de la commission. Ensuite, l'approbation des procès-verbaux des réunions. Il s'agit des réunions des 22 et 23 mai 2023. Est-ce qu'il y a des commentaires sur ces procès-verbaux ? Non.
Ils sont donc réputés approuvés. Nous passons maintenant au point 4 de l'ordre du jour : compte rendu des négociations interinstitutionnelles en cours. Le premier point concerne les crédits aux consommateurs. La rapporteure est Kateřina Konečná. Madame Konečná, vous avez la parole.
Kateřina Konečná
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Chers collègues, je suis heureuse de vous informer que nous avons conclu les négociations en trilogue sur la directive relative aux crédits aux consommateurs.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.