Speeches

– Mr President, indeed, can I just say – as you walk back towards your seat, Michiel – that you didn’t thank yourself, but you should, because you did an excellent job on behalf of this Parliament. And the results will speak for themselves. So I want to join in my appreciation for the work of both the rapporteur and all of the shadows, because this reform is very significant. I also want to acknowledge the work and role of the ECON Chair, Ms Tinagli, as well as the French and the Czech Presidencies, because all of you worked hard to finalise this reform and within a very short period of time. This reform is the first of our November 2021 Capital Markets Union package to actually get through the process, so I think it leads the way. And it is very timely because we know that the capital markets are important. We need to develop them and we know, indeed, that the Council conclusions of last week endorse our work on the Capital Markets Union. Both the net-zero transition and the digital transition will require hundreds of billions of euros, and public financing cannot meet these investment needs alone. So we do need private financing for our long-term competitiveness and prosperity, and that relies on well-functioning and well-developed capital markets. We need many measures to make the Capital Markets Union a reality, and the ELTIF reform is one of those measures. In fact, ELTIF, if you like, embodies what we want to achieve with the Capital Markets Union. These long-term investment funds and the CMU are about long-term investment in the green and digital transition, and these are vital to our future. This reform will help channel tens of billions of euro into our economy – as I said, in the green and digital. This will help our SMEs. It will also be invested in social, transport, energy and green infrastructure projects and in digital projects. The CMU is about enabling EU citizens to invest for their future, and this reform will unlock new investment opportunities for all citizens. It will open up new types of investment currently reserved for large institutions and high net worth individuals. And it will do this in a safe and regulated manner. So I want to thank the co-legislators for the changes you made to our proposal, especially for making the rules simpler and more flexible. On fund rules, ELTIFs get more flexibility in terms of fund-of-fund strategies and diversification limits. That will help them compete with other products that have similar investment objectives. On investor protection, the co-legislators struck the right balance between ensuring effective safeguards and removing unnecessary hurdles for retail investors. On sustainability, the co-legislators recognised green bonds as a category of investment assets eligible for ELTIFs. And finally, I would like to note that this reform – as the rapporteur has already mentioned – is a success. We have early indications from market participants that dozens of ELTIFs are due to be launched in the near future, and this would not have been possible without your work to revise this regulation. So my sincere thanks to the European Parliament, to Mr Hoogeveen, for keeping a high level of ambition for this reform. And I look forward to an exchange of views, because very often the debates in this House are difficult but this one – I think – unites us. And if I may say – as I wear the green – I’ve just come from a reception marking 50 years of my Member State’s membership of the European Union. And while not many will be here to listen to this debate, all of the components that I talk about – that you have worked on – are important for European citizens. And I think we need to reflect on that and to thank you very sincerely for that work.

– Mr President, I think I can be brief and just say a sincere thank you to all of the honourable Members for this evening’s debate. It is absolutely essential that we protect ourselves and our system against attack, and those financial entities in scope will be part of this process. There will be oversight also by EU supervisory authorities of big critical ICT providers to the sector. And I think this is really stepping up, taking responsibility. As more and more of us use online financial products and services, we need to have trust in the system and have the confidence to make sure that there is supervision and checks on ICT providers and that the financial system is required to check that they are not vulnerable to these attacks, which could be so damaging for the system itself, for individuals and for businesses. So again, my appreciation to the Members and indeed to the rapporteurs.

– Madam President, colleagues, it’s a pleasure to be here for the conclusion of the work on this Digital Operational Resilience Act, or DORA. My thanks to the honourable Members of the ECON Committee for their work. Of course, in particular, our thanks go to the two rapporteurs – Billy Kelleher, for the DORA Regulation, and you’ve just heard from the rapporteur on the DORA Directive, Mikuláš Peksa – and all of the shadow rapporteurs. DORA is really a cornerstone of our work on digital finance in the European Union, making sure that we support innovation and do it in a safe way. This work began just over two years ago and in fact it’s become much more urgent as the digitalisation of the financial sector continues apace. Financial institutions are more and more dependent on technology. More and more people and businesses are managing their finances online. So protecting the financial system from cyberattacks and cyber—fraud is vital. So, when I look at the objectives, DORA aims to strengthen the overall digital operational resilience of all firms in the EU financial sector. It creates a regulatory framework on digital operational resilience for all financial companies. So these companies will need to make sure they can withstand, respond to and recover from all types of ICT-related disruptions and threats. DORA requires financial entities to set up a management process to monitor, classify and report major ICT-related incidents. Financial entities will need to regularly test their risk-management capabilities to ensure that they can identify weaknesses and address problems. Finally, DORA will, for the first time, give financial supervisors direct oversight over ICT providers that are critical to the EU financial system. I welcome the amendments to the proposal by the European Parliament steered by the honourable Members I’ve mentioned. You strengthen proportionality in DORA. You have introduced additional flexibility for financial entities in terms of resilience testing and you have provided for a coordinated approach to oversight through the Joint Oversight network. Given the rapid digitalisation of our financial system, strengthening its operational resilience is absolutely essential. President, honourable Members, I look forward to the rest of our discussion this evening.

– Madam President, this has been a really interesting debate. And I have to say that, despite some criticism, I think there’s a shared view across all of the groups that what we’re doing is not only important, but hugely significant. And I want to thank you for the strength of the presentations this evening. Maybe a point on SMEs, because Ms Niebler always does speak for SMEs, and we share that concern that SMEs should not be burdened with the same standards as larger companies. So we will be proportionate and there is a time difference as to when listed SMEs will have to report. We will be very vigilant when we get from EFRAG their standards to pay attention to this proportionality and we will do that before adopting the delegated act that will put these in place. Maybe a key point that few of us reference, but I think is hugely important, is that the information provided will have to be verified. And this is very significant because it does mean that we will not only look at the figures that companies produce in terms of profitability, etc.; we will be looking at the information around sustainability. Both sets of information will have to be verified and that will give confidence to investors and to companies about the information. Indeed, I have always regarded the taxonomy, for example, as a management plan for companies because those companies with an eye to the future know that sustainability is the only path to be on. And it’s not always clear how you get there. And I think that together the Parliament, Council and Commission have put in place the tools to allow companies that want to be there for the long term to do the right thing and invest in a more sustainable future. Time is not on our side, so we do need to act fast. The crisis won’t wait 10 years for us to hang around. And when EFRAG submits its first set of standards in the coming weeks, we will adopt those standards by the middle of next year. And as I say, we will be proportionate around the SME question. I do not share the pessimism of our colleague in the back, Madam – I hope I pronounce your name right, yes, we’re waving at each other. I do not regard this as a cardinal error. I think it would be a cardinal error if the Commission and this Parliament and Council ignored the fact that we need sustainability information, that our companies want it, our citizens are demanding it. And I will end on an upbeat note. Our rapporteur is somewhere in the room, I know, but others refer to his commitment and passion and energy, and I want to applaud that. I think that he managed to bring you together as colleagues in a very constructive way, and I hope that I and my colleagues in the Commission – and I know we did – played our part as well. And let’s move forward, making sure that this is implemented in a proportionate way for the betterment of our companies and our citizens.

– Madam President, colleagues, honourable Members, I’m trying to catch the eye of our very committed rapporteur to say, at the very outset, thank you for your passion this evening and your commitment during the process. It is as a result of that and your collaboration with the shadow rapporteurs that we are able to have this debate and to sign off on this important piece of legislation. I think we are all reminded of the challenges we face, particularly this week as COP27 takes place in Egypt. There is so much to do around climate and biodiversity, and we need both finance and information to be successful, to change the scenarios which are so alarming. It is a huge challenge. This debate on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, in my view, represents a very important achievement in our collective efforts towards a more sustainable economy and society. It will support and steer companies as they make the transition to more sustainable business models and a more sustainable economy. The directive will strengthen the rules on the environmental and the social information that companies have to report. For the first time – and this is how significant this debate and this directive is – we are putting sustainability reporting on an equal footing with financial reporting, and this is hugely significant, as other speakers have already alluded to. We need accurate and reliable information to ensure that investments are being made towards a more sustainable future. Companies need the information to plan their transition paths, and investors need the information to have clarity about what they are investing in and to combat greenwashing. Because greenwashing, if left unaddressed, could reduce investor confidence in sustainable investment products, not to mention public confidence in sustainable finance and in companies’ efforts to transition. Clear and consistent disclosure requirements, together with the new assurance requirement, will improve the reliability of sustainability information. The final text of the directive provides a good basis for alignment with the proposed Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which is currently in trilogues. The text also addresses the particular situation of SMEs. Only listed SMEs are subject to reporting requirements, and there are provisions to prevent SMEs in supply chains from being unduly burdened by trickle-down information requests from larger companies. The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group, EFRAC, is now in the process of improving its draft standards so that they are in line with the directive and implementable by companies. European standards need to strike a balance between providing useful information for investors and stakeholders and the potential cost and burden for reporting companies. The Commission is fully committed to ensuring that this balance is achieve, considering the current economic situation. EU standards must take account of global standards, including the standards currently being developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board, the ISSB. Technical discussions between the Commission, EFRAC and the ISSB are taking place to achieve as much commonality as possible between European and global standards. So I now look forward to the rest of this debate on what is a really ground—breaking piece of legislation that we must insist is implemented fully, and meets the needs of companies, investors and citizens.

– Mr President, thank you very much and thank you, colleagues. Thank you for this debate. It was long, it was well argued, and it was important that we had this conversation. I think the last speaker referred to a letter from the Ukrainian Minister of Energy, and I want to thank the Minister for the statement he made and I will quote the letter where he says, ‘I strongly believe that the inclusion of gas and nuclear in the taxonomy is an important element of the energy security in Europe, especially with a view to replacing Russian gas.’ And I don’t think we should second-guess this letter. We should read and hear what he has said. My second clarification is around this accusation that what we are doing is a gift to Vladimir Putin. I hope we have enough respect for each other in this Chamber to say that that is not the case, that this is, in fact, a realistic proposal to deal with great urgency, the matter of our transition towards a more sustainable future. I repeat the very fact that our taxonomy, which is law, already – already! – points to renewables as the priority. We need to invest immediately more money in the renewable energy sector, but we also need to be realistic and accept that we will need to invest in gas and nuclear in transition. And very few who oppose this work on the CDA have listened to that word ‘transition’. My next comment refers to those who have concerns for the financial sector because they might not be clear. Well, frankly, the financial sector has a duty to channel investments in renewables, and they are well able and well-staffed to understand our taxonomy in all its nuances. I don’t think they need our sympathy. And separately, investors will have clarity, absolute clarity, if there is a financial product that contains an investment in gas or nuclear. There will be no greenwashing. And that is something that you must accept, what I am saying here today. What’s been interesting for me is that there are different views right across this House. So families are divided. Families at home are divided on these energy sources. We would like immediately to stop using all fossil fuels, but let’s understand what’s happening today because of the war, the illegal invasion and the horrors that are inflicted in Ukraine. Member States that had closed coal-fired power plants are re-opening them. And this is not something we want to see. Equally, we do not want to see that there will be only investments in gas and nuclear, but we want them to happen in the transition. More importantly, we want them to happen with conditions that are strict. There will be no Wild West in terms of private investments. If this delegated act is rejected – and I stand in front of this House and will accept fully the vote of this House as a former Member and will watch it very carefully – it means that we have nothing to say on these energy sources. There will be no conditionality because there will be investment. I urge all of you who took a pragmatic and realistic approach to the Climate Delegated Act, which is now law, which I thank you for, to take the same pragmatic and realistic approach to this issue, the Complementary Delegated Act, and reject this motion of rejection. This is important for our future and I ask you to consider your vote, which I am sure you will, with the care and attention it absolutely deserves.

– Mr President, to quote one of the many commentators on our debate today, ‘this is a moment of truth’. The first and most important truth that I want to convey to you, as former colleagues, is that the Climate Delegated Act, now in legislation since 1 January of this year, prioritises investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. And, given the urgency of moving away from Russian fossil fuels, we need to ramp up those investments with a renewed sense of urgency. This is our future. You know, there was considerable debate about the first delegated act. Just as there is strong debate about the complementary delegated act we’re discussing today. The Climate Delegated Act was also opposed by some who are speaking and will speak in this debate. As a former Member of this Parliament, I fully respect your strongly held views, but I also appreciate the pragmatism and realism in this House that allowed the Climate Delegated Act move from proposal to legislation. The second truth: gas is a fossil fuel. It is not green. And I have never described it thus. I can say that in several languages if you wish. But I have never described gas as anything other than a fossil fuel. But some Member States moving from dirty fossil fuel may need gas in transition, and that is where we have placed gas in this taxonomy. Nuclear power: the speaker before me just said it is divisive. There are many different views around nuclear. It has supporters and detractors. But nuclear, low carbon is part of our energy mix in transition too. That is why it is in the transition category of the taxonomy. The third truth: the taxonomy is a voluntary instrument to guide private investors towards investments that allow us to reach our climate goals. It is a tool for the financial sector and for investors. It is not energy policy. Member States are, and remain, fully in charge of their energy mix. I want to stress that there is no obligation on any Member State to invest in either nuclear or gas. There is no obligation on any private investor to invest in nuclear or gas. But, and this is a fundamental truth, with this complementary delegated act, we provide clarity around the criteria under which private investments in gas or nuclear, or both, comply with the taxonomy in the transition category. While the CDA was drafted before Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, it does actually help us to look for alternative sources of gas, including LNG from our international partners. It sends a signal that we support investment in gas infrastructure, power plants during our transition. It does not deepen our dependence on Russian gas. Our REPowerEU plan aims to tackle our energy insecurity as we move away rapidly from Russian fossil fuel. We need these alternative sources to eliminate over-reliance on Russian gas, and we have to guard against stranded assets by ensuring that any new gas infrastructure would have to be able to convert to low carbon or renewable gases. So our priority is to ensure investment in renewables intensifies. But without diverting EU green finances to fossil fuels, like gas or indeed nuclear, at the expense of renewables, which are a priority in our legislation, as I have already said. For me, it’s better that we have clear rules, clear conditionality on private investments in gas and nuclear, to ensure that we move towards our shared net-zero ambitions. Without this complimentary delegated act, there would be no rules and conditions guiding such private investments. In addition, the financial sector will be required to provide full disclosure of their financial products with additional transparency required for products that might contain or would contain gas and nuclear. There will be no greenwashing. Instead, it would be crystal clear for investors as to what investments are contained within financial products. Colleagues, we are in a time of great uncertainty. Today we see what we think was the unthinkable. Some Member States are reopening coal-fired power plants because of energy insecurity concerns. I hope that my remarks clarify why the Commission believes that this complementary delegated act is important for our energy transition. It is both realistic and pragmatic given the very uncertain times we live in.

– Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for a very strong debate. The rapporteur can be very pleased, Ms Lalucq, with the support you are getting for your work. I am very glad that the Commission and Parliament agree on the need to urgently adopt this file and there is a strong voice in support. So, our appreciation of that. So now it’s for the Council, and for the last opposing Member State to agree to the compromise. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you again for the many valuable suggestions on how to improve the legal text of the Commission’s proposal. We understand and agree with the spirit of most of Parliament’s suggestions and amendments, and they provide valuable food for thought in the ongoing debate on the adoption of the directive in Council, where we are very close to reaching a general approach on the Presidency compromise. Furthermore, your suggestions will be very useful in the discussions within the so—called implementation framework, which will have to conclude on a number of topics, including safe harbours and exchange of information, and that all EU Member States will then need to implement. Some colleagues raised the issue about the 15% and I would repeat the point I made in my opening remarks that this is a rate endorsed by all Member States and by our partners at the international level. I really appreciate that Parliament in its majority support that particular rate. You mentioned, Ms Regner, that this is historic and you are absolutely right. I’m very pleased to be here on behalf of my colleague, Paolo Gentiloni, in this historic moment, because there were times in the past that this was thought not to be possible. But we still have work to do and therefore we very much encourage Parliament to keep the pressure on, and we appreciate this debate, particularly the work of the rapporteur.

– Madam President. Good evening, colleagues. I want to reassure you, I was actually physically present and I hadn’t realised that you had started, Madam President, but I was glad when I entered the chamber to hear a speech with strong support for what we’re trying to do collectively here. So maybe I’ll start by highlighting, if that is necessary, that the Commission is fully committed to ensuring the timely implementation of the two-pillar OECD/G20 Agreement. And this is, as I know you will agree, a historic step in reforming international taxation, but it’s also an example of multilateral successes that we should all be proud of. As you know, the implementation of the two pillars of the global agreement in 2023 will ensure that our tax system reflects the new reality of our economies and allows for a level playing field between all business models where all companies, including digital ones, pay their fair share of taxes in the right place. That is why Pillar 2 needs to be urgently adopted. I know that you don’t need to be convinced, but I’m really grateful to this Parliament for your constant push for a quick adoption of this important file. And I’d like to thank you for having opted – because of the need for a quick transposition – to adopt the Agreement, and that the text does not propose any significant amendments to the Directive and stays close to the OECD deal, as agreed. I don’t think that I need to dwell on the text of the Directive itself, but only perhaps to underline two points. First, by establishing a minimum level of 15% effective taxation, we put a floor on the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates. I’m well aware that many of you honourable Members wished this rate was higher. Nonetheless, the 15% raise is the one endorsed by all Member States and by our partners at the international level. So I thank you for accepting this race to ensure a swift implementation of the international agreement. In our implementation of Pillar 2, we remain closely aligned with the details of the global agreement, providing only for necessary adjustments to preserve compliance with EU law. Second, the Directive will apply to all groups with a turnover of more than EUR 750 million. And here I appreciate that Parliament’s report stresses the intended scope of the Directive. The Commission agrees with the general spirit of most of the amendments proposed by Parliament, and we, of course, share the sense of political urgency to have a swift adoption and implementation of the Directive. We have already travelled a long way and expectations are very high. So the ball is now in the court of the Council. I would like to underline that while we fully share the view that there is a need to advance as fast as possible on the finalisation of the Pillar 1 rules, creating a conditionality between the pillars would be legally questionable in the light of case law of the EU Court of Justice. Let me finish by strongly encouraging the last opposing Member State to reconsider its position and agree to the latest compromise.

– Mr President, thank you to the colleagues for this debate. I think we should acknowledge that Suisse Secrets are no longer secrets because of the work of investigative journalists, and we should be grateful that there are investigative journalists and that we have press freedom. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we’re very committed to maintaining a tough approach in the fight against money laundering, both inside Europe and with third countries. I mentioned also that we are not resiling from watching whether progress is made or indeed if progress stalls, and we will take further measures if that is required. I want to thank you for mentioning Europe’s own anti-money laundering efforts. We’ve had five iterations of the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Directive, and it’s not enough because some Member States haven’t fully implemented. And indeed we know that we need to go further. So I hope that we can work together on this package, which is a strong package that has to tidy up the more-than-loose ends in our current legislation. But we do need to work hard and we need to work fast, and indeed the French Presidency are showing great leadership. I think the other point which has really come into sharp focus is the aggression by Russia in Ukraine and our sanctions. We now realise how much vulgar wealth there is in the hands of very few, globally. And I think that that visibility is really repulsive to our citizens. We are freezing assets, but we do have a Task Force in the Commission and its title is Freeze and Seize. And I know Member States will be looking at the second part of that with their own legislation, and I do believe this is a moment we should not allow to pass by without making a firm commitment that the financial system has got to be cleaned up both inside the European Union and outside.

– Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to speak on a really important topic. Before I really get into the depth of the debate, can I thank you, Minister, for your commitment, and that of the French Presidency, for our anti-money-laundering package. It’s really important and I do appreciate the support and the work. We’ve all followed successive revelations on money laundering with huge concern. These Swiss secrets are just the latest. They reveal that Credit Suisse maintained business relationships with dozens of corrupt government officials, criminals and alleged human-rights abusers for several years. In the Commission, we’ve made the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism a key priority. And we know that there is work to be done to tackle this issue. We stepped up the fight with the adoption of the legislative package in July of last year, and I know that we can rely on this House to work in a timely way on these proposals. The Commission has put a particular focus on the enforcement of existing rules, as communicated in the action plan on money laundering in May 2020. We all share the view that we need to continue to strengthen our defences against money laundering and terrorism financing in the Union and that we need to address the risks from third countries. So now I want to turn to the ‘Swiss secrets’ case in more detail. Like the European Parliament, the Commission regards these revelations as very concerning. I would like to reassure this House that we will not ignore the severe failings which this case has laid bare. I am determined to spare no effort in the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism, both in the EU and in third countries. The war in Ukraine is showing yet again that there is a need to clean up the financial system. We are determined to continue our work within the Union and with our allies to rid the global financial system of money laundering. The Swiss secrets revelations focus on the shortcomings of Credit Suisse in its customer due diligence checks. Credit institutions need to verify customer identities and the source of funds to avoid their services being used to launder money. The intensity of these checks depends on the customer’s risk profile. The proper application of customer due diligence for onboarding customers and throughout the entire business relationship is a cornerstone of the EU’s preventative framework for anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing. We have carefully analysed the implications of the Swiss secrets revelations to ensure that the EU’s financial system is protected. To our knowledge, and according to the information from the investigative journalists, the cases revealed refer exclusively to this particular bank and its activities in Switzerland. I would like to underline that all subsidiaries and branches of third-country institutions in the EU must apply EU rules and are supervised for their implementation accordingly. However, deficiencies in a third country’s anti-money laundering framework can also pose a problem for the EU, where there is a high level of integration of the financial system and a high volume of cross-border transactions with the EU. The Commission has a legal obligation to protect the functioning of the EU’s internal market, and that is why, in line with our Anti-Money Laundering Directive, the Commission has to identify third countries with strategic deficiencies in their national anti-money laundering and countering of terrorism regimes. Switzerland’s anti-money laundering framework and its implementation were assessed by the Commission in 2019. That assessment found deficiencies in the Swiss framework. This autonomous assessment also took into account the results of the mutual evaluation report of Switzerland in 2016 by the Financial Action Task Force – the global standard-setter in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The European Union and Switzerland have strong economic ties. As recently demonstrated, the Commission is working closely with Switzerland on sanctions imposed on Russia. An important element of our approach towards third countries is dialogue and cooperation with the countries concerned. The Commission has already engaged with its Swiss counterparts to improve Switzerland’s measures to fight money laundering. The Commission met with the Swiss authorities most recently on 1 March of this year. This approach of dialogue and engagement is starting to show positive results. Switzerland has adopted reforms in relation to the fight against money laundering over the past few years. In March of last year, the Swiss Parliament passed amendments to the Swiss AML (anti-money laundering) Act. These amendments include an obligation for banks to verify beneficial owners and apply higher standards of ‘know your customer’ procedures. My services are taking a closer look at these latest reforms and are analysing whether they address the issues revealed by Swiss secrets. We understand that these amendments enter into force in July of this year. This is a step in the right direction, but effective implementation is of the utmost importance and the Commission will closely follow up on this. We are intensifying contact with Swiss counterparts to impress on them our concerns. We will maintain our dialogue with Switzerland to ensure deficiencies are tackled and we will thoroughly monitor developments. Before concluding, I would like to address the demands raised by some political groups and members to consider adding Switzerland to our list of high-risk jurisdictions in the immediate future. At this stage, the Commission is of the view that including Switzerland in our list of high-risk third countries would be premature. The Swiss secrets refer to one Swiss bank and concern issues which, in some instances, date back several years. We have a constructive dialogue with Switzerland, and recent reforms appear to deal with shortcomings related to customer due diligence procedures in the Swiss framework. According to our rules, the EU listing cannot occur before the dialogue with the relevant third country has been exhausted. We have ongoing engagement with Switzerland and we must ensure that this dialogue with our Swiss counterparts yields positive results and ultimately addresses our concerns regarding the Swiss anti-money laundering and countering of terrorism framework. But I really want to assure this House this evening that we will carefully monitor Switzerland’s progress. Should this progress be insufficient, or current engagement be broken, we do not rule out taking further action. And, of course, the Commission will keep the European Parliament fully informed on all developments.

– Mr President, just to say this is a very pleasant debate because it’s good work and it’s progress, all building on what has already been the case. Ms Charanzová, I think you were right to remind us of how it used to be, because we tend to just take this for granted that we can ‘roam like at home’. So again, to thank the Parliament for this good cooperation and ensuring that the continued benefits apply for all EU citizens and businesses, particularly in the single market and how it functions. I want to thank those of you who commented on the issue of roaming for Ukrainian refugees. I want to give you the assurance that my colleague Thierry Breton and his services are committed to supporting Ukraine and its people, and are actively engaging with all relevant counterparts, with support by BEREC, to ensure fast and coordinated action, and I think all of us fully support that. So thank you.

– Madam President, really, I do want to say a big thank you to honourable Members and the rapporteurs because your work on the negotiations means that every European will continue to benefit for a further 10 years from the freedom to travel across the Union without having to pay additional roaming charges for calls, text messages and mobile data. And this is an excellent result. For many people it’s not only a feature that they enjoy and they are aware of, it’s a clear symbol of what it means to be part of the single market. We’ve seen that leaving the single market brought back roaming surcharges for many British citizens. With the agreement reached in December EU citizens will not only be free from surcharges but will also be guaranteed better quality, better protection from hidden costs and better access to emergency services. The work of this House also greatly contributed to making this regulation more sustainable for telecom operators by providing a path for reduction of the caps for prices at wholesale level while still ensuring cost recovery. It’s now crucial that the new rules enter into force before the existing Regulation expires in June. One final point. Recently, many of you, and indeed many of our Member States, have raised the roaming charges issue in the context of Putin’s aggression against Ukraine as a way to show our support and solidarity with the people of Ukraine in this tragic moment. I could not agree more. In the face of this crisis, for Ukrainian citizens forced to flee their country, being able to communicate with their loved ones back home is of the utmost importance. I’m very happy to report that various European telecom operators took swift action to reduce roaming costs, to provide hundreds of thousands of free SIM cards or free calls to Ukraine or free Wi-Fi in border areas or shelters. These voluntary measures are the quickest way to address this challenge and have already made a real difference on the ground to many refugees. The Commission has been calling on European operators to continue these measures for as long as this tragic situation persists, and for more operators to join this action as Ukrainian citizens are increasingly moving across all of Europe. We are also looking into possibilities to go further. Together with the European telecom regulators we are working closely with EU operators and Ukrainian authorities on this issue. I’m sure this is very important for this House and I’m very pleased to bring that information to you, and I look forward to our debate.

– Madam President, can you hear me? I have to say, there’s something rather bizarre about a debate on technology when the technology fails. But what is wonderful is that we actually do have technology supplements, so well done, Madam President, and all the technical advisers. I think one of the earlier speakers mentioned that they would not sing – in fact a fellow Irish person, I believe. I’ve certainly been known to do that. But what really strikes me, getting back to our debate here this evening, is the unity of purpose amongst you, the rapporteur and the shadows, and also your leadership, Mr Van Overtveldt, is deeply appreciated, because this is a first. And I think it’s good to be involved in something that is a first, but also it is not a free-for-all. It is a first with conditionality. We have to test something to see does it work before we make any more decisions. So it’s been really good to hear this debate here this evening. I very much look forward to the vote in this House tomorrow. And in terms of deregulation, I’m on record, I think, in one of my first interventions in this Parliament as Commissioner responsible for financial services, that deregulation is not on my agenda, but effective, better regulation is: innovation and technology is part of that. Lastly, if I may say that I had the great pleasure of meeting a group of young people today. They were young leaders, in fact, from Northern Ireland, and they were in the Commission, and it was absolutely impressive to hear them talk about cryptocurrencies, this technology and what young people are doing. So it’s really important that we in this House are involved in this, because the future is digital and young people are not starting from where we start from. They’re already there. So well done to all of you for your work, for your cooperation, and for being part of what is a first.

– Madam President, I would just like to say how pleased I am, actually, to be here this evening for this discussion on what has been a very successful agreement on the distributed ledger technology (DLT) pilot project. And I want to begin by thanking, of course, the rapporteur from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), Mr Van Overtveldt, who has given an extremely good rundown of what has been achieved and indeed given us some warnings about the future, which I have taken good note of. But together we’re paving the way for the future of European finance with this initiative. Digital innovation is becoming ever more important, and again, I am pleased that this House shares the commitment of the Commission to support innovation within the regulated space. As you know, this regulation forms a key part of our digital agenda and ensures that EU financial services legislation is fit for the digital age. We are providing regulatory certainty to pioneer the use of distributed ledger technology in financial services. So briefly, I want to mention some of the key elements of the agreed regulation. The digital representation of financial instruments on distributed ledgers is expected to open opportunities for efficiency improvements in trading and post-trading processes. The issuance of traditional asset classes in tokenised form will enable them to be issued, stored and transferred on a distributed ledger, which will also increase efficiency. With this regulation, the European Union is opening up to the use of DLT in existing financial market infrastructures such as investment firms, market operators and central securities depositories. In concrete terms, it will allow for targeted exemptions from existing rules where those rules would pose technical obstacles to achieving the full benefit of DLT. As regards supervision, national competent authorities will remain in charge for authorisation, while the European Securities and Markets Authorities (ESMA) can issue an opinion on application. An explanation would be needed if national competent authorities decide to deviate significantly. And last but not least, consumer protection. DLT operators will have to put in place mechanisms to handle client complaints and compensation. In the trilogues, I know that it was especially important for Parliament to ensure a level playing field, and a significant role for ESMA. I’m glad that we were able to find good solutions and significantly improve the Commission proposal in these areas. The pilot regime is, by its nature, temporary. It will last five years. This will allow market participants to safely experiment with the DLT to issue, trade and settle securities. This experience will inform future policymaking in digital finance and could open the door to more policy initiatives. Before I finish, I want to thank again the rapporteur and all of the shadow rapporteurs, because this is groundbreaking work and I look forward to our debate.

– Mr President, colleagues, for a Thursday afternoon, this has been a lively debate, and I welcome this, and many different views, but all strongly explored and developed. So I’m glad that I’m here to participate. I do want to take a slight issue with Mr Hoogeveen, who said that people in the Berlaymont are power-hungry. I’m not. I was of this House, so I understand people and I am still connected, so perhaps not to judge too harshly. On the point of more bureaucracy, this Parliament wants us to do something with philanthropy, and I think we don’t want to tie it up in red tape and make charity stop because people do give. And I support your point that in giving you receive. But, generally speaking, there are a lot of organisations and institutions who are looking at other ways of funding their work. They need complementary funding tools because they do have financial pressures. And in order for many of them to thrive in the long term, including in the arts and culture that I referenced and the protection of the environment and social innovation, they do need to look at ways in this non—commercial sector of long—term financial strategies that makes them sustainable. The European non—profit sectors are at a turning point, and this pandemic, the COVID—19 pandemic, revealed both their vulnerabilities, but, as was referenced, also highlighted their importance. So in this new reality, I believe that all sources of funding must be explored and philanthropy will have to play, in my view, a key role. So thank you for the debate. Mr President, if I can be indulged with the microphone for 30 seconds and I hope I have your support in what I’m about to say. As a former Vice—President of Parliament, I want to thank Julia Glinski for her excellent service to this Parliament. She’s finishing in plenary services after seven years, moving on and I hope with your support you feel it appropriate that I thank her for her service, and I mean that from the very bottom of my heart, Julia, because you are and hopefully will remain a wonderful colleague and a great servant of this Parliament. Thank you and thank you for giving her a well—deserved round of applause.

– Mr President, I’m here on behalf of Commissioner Gabriel. But of course, we all have an interest in this topic. And by way of background, in Europe, we have more than 147 000 philanthropic organisations with an accumulated annual expenditure of nearly EUR 60 billion. Just last year, global philanthropic giving, in all its forms, topped EUR 660 billion, the highest amount ever. The field of arts and culture is at the core of philanthropy, and it is amongst the most important areas of funding for philanthropic organisations in Europe. Data shows that nearly half of the European Foundation Centre’s members have a main focus on arts and culture, and this is welcome. The cultural and creative sectors and industries have been hard hit by the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Even at a time when the sector is gradually reopening again all across Europe, many challenges remain as the financial impact on the sector has been huge. On top of this, natural disasters and the extreme weather we’ve seen this summer has added strain on venues and cultural heritage sites. Artists have seen venues closed and not always re-opening. Even with steady public funding, the sector remains vulnerable. Eurostat data shows that in 2018, cultural services represented, on average, 1% of governments’ expenditure. The amount remains unchanged since 2013. But the story these figures do not tell is that amounts vary greatly from State to State. Some Member States increase their expenditure, often responding to challenges from the 2008 economic crisis, but others have reduced it, putting greater pressure on a sector that is so important to our economy, to people’s livelihoods and to our sense of community. Most countries put in place extraordinary measures just to support their cultural and creative industries during the recent pandemic and confinement. Indeed, so did the European Union, with the unprecedented NextGenerationEU package and a new MFF, which allows a higher number of EU funding sources for the cultural and creative sectors than before. But we know that this support cannot meet all needs. A few examples: a recent survey shows that during the second wave of the pandemic, almost 7 in 10 museums expected budget cuts in the coming years, and they expect that it will be a long time until visits will be back to pre-COVID levels. In addition, half of the surveyed museums stated that they had not considered looking into alternative funding sources. So, on the one hand, we have pressure on the horizon. On the other hand, we have no clear, widely implemented way of relieving this pressure, and this brings me directly to the topic of our debate of philanthropy. This philanthropy can help us catalyse a more holistic response to the vast challenges that lie ahead, from climate change to vaccination and social innovation. There is a great disparity amongst legal frameworks relating to philanthropy with regard to arts and artists across Europe. Corporate giving or donations as tools for corporate philanthropy are considered to be one-sided business transactions where donors contribute with money, time, information, goods and services to another organisation. Reasons to donate are therefore largely moral, expected to contribute to social welfare and understood as a pre-social spending or pro-social spending. For instance, in Romania, some of the largest private companies have included cultural heritage in their corporate social responsibility support programmes. Donations in general are covered by the Treaty, and these rules on free movement of capital apply, which create rights both for the donor and the recipient of a donation. This means that donors can donate cross-border and beneficiaries can accept foreign funding. Any restrictions by Member States need to pursue a legitimate public interest. The Commission will ensure that national measures, which restrict capital movements are risk and evidence based and proportionate. Two forms of donations can be distinguished. Pure donations in which donors stay anonymous and public donations where donors are publicly announced and receive indirect benefits from the promotion of their name in public. Donations are generally considered as a deductible expense for corporate income tax purposes. In some environments, the subcategory of patronage is employed as a mechanism to provide support to good causes with some degree of expected return. In public donations and patronage, there is an element of societal recognition and reputation. However, these forms of contribution display a deeper, altruistic dimension than sponsorship actions and do not imply the generation of an immediate and tangible output. In these cases, the boundary amongst public corporate donations and sponsorships may be difficult to draw. The regulatory and strategic frameworks of corporate-giving and patronage are key factors to promote and encourage these practices. In many European countries, donations are encouraged through a variety of different income tax deductions. Special fiscal schemes and tax benefits vary widely from state to state. Considerations upon legal entities, eligibility and general interest of the activities are important aspects to achieve social and institutional convergence. For instance, Spain established a set of deductions applicable to the donations supporting the historical Spanish heritage assets. In this framework, the potential impact of non-monetary donations of professional services should also be recognised and encouraged. An additional model to consider is the one based on connecting business with individuals and the arts. A typical scheme is a business to arts found in Ireland, where businesses are matched with arts organizations and artists to develop solutions in areas such as sponsorship, commissioning, brand development, training, leadership development, internal and external communications and events. In this setup, business works with artists and arts organisations, providing a range of training opportunities and coaching to help diversify income streams, to grow audiences and improve efficiencies. Their corporate membership base and network ranges across the business sectors from local family-run companies, SMEs, semi-state companies to corporate foundations. Another good example can be found in Belgium, where the foundation Prométhéa aims to develop corporate philanthropy and patronage for cultural and heritage. It facilitates exchanges between different sponsorship actors from political, economic and cultural spheres, and supports to businesses in that patronage strategy. Its objective is to increase the number of contributors to, and resources for, patronage, mainly in Belgium. The idea to have a single market for philanthropy should embrace all topologies of sources of financing I’ve just mentioned. Learning from best practices without prejudice to the possible application of state aid rules. When it comes to supporting arts and culture specifically, DG EAC hosted in January a complementary funding workshop for cultural heritage with over 100 good practices from our Member States and this included donations and therefore philanthropy, but also many more schemes such as public and private partnerships, lotteries and so forth. In addition, the Commission is currently preparing two studies to identify barriers for cross-border activities of social economy actors and map the legal regimes of associations in the European Union, including for philanthropy. The upcoming Action Plan for the Social Economy will look at these issues with a view to facilitating the implementation of the principle of non-discrimination regarding cross-border donations to public benefit organisations. In this context, the Commission follows closely the ongoing work related to the Parliament’s own-initiative legislative report on a statute for European cross-border associations and non-profit organisations. Thank you, and I look forward to the debate.

– Mr President, I can be brief. I think to the rapporteur, Vice-President Charanzová, and your team of shadow rapporteurs, you have got praise from all sides of this house for your work, and I think that is a good compliment to your success this morning. It’s been a long process, because this dates back to the previous parliamentary mandate. So for your commitment to this file, certainly from our side, deep appreciation. And of course, we would also thank the Council for their work. I think the debate this morning underlines the European Parliament’s commitment to better protection for citizens, and I hope that today’s vote will confirm that we can deliver better EU rules for motor insurance that brings significant benefits for victims and policyholders. And to those Members of Parliament who raised issues, perhaps for a future time, I have taken good note.

– Mr President, honourable members, firstly, my deep appreciation for the work of Vice-President Charanzová and all of her shadows. And can I say I really appreciate your common sense approach. And indeed, if you look back on the history of the Motor Insurance Directive, the first one was adopted in 1972, and for nearly 50 years it has enabled vehicles and motorists to travel freely across the European Union using the same compulsory insurance. But above all, the directive protects the victims of accidents. We have made a number of improvements to the directive over the past five years, and the text we agreed at the end of June is another important step towards improving the rules. The negotiations were long, in part because of the pandemic, but I believe we have reached a good compromise, which will have significant benefits for the people you represent in this house. It means that citizens will be protected if their insurer becomes insolvent. Policyholders that move to another Member State will have their claims history assessed in the same way as residents of that Member State. In other words, people can take their no-claims track record with them if they move to another EU country. And most importantly, European citizens who are victims of an accident will receive timely compensation for injuries or damages. Finally, clarifying the scope will improve legal certainty for victims and policyholders. Colleagues, I wish you all the best for the vote today, and I hope for the adoption of this revision of the Motor Insurance Directive.

– Mr President, honourable members, this morning’s debate really confirms the European Parliament’s continued interest, commitment, concern for and engagement in the Western Balkans, and I want to thank you for that. Here the European Union is rapidly transforming to address global challenges, including climate change, digitalisation and security. As potential future EU Member States already closely linked to relevant EU policy areas by trade, transport or energy, our partners in the region are an important part of our vision for a stronger, greener and more resilient Europe. Only as partners can we successfully address these global challenges. Several of you rightly mentioned the enlargement process and the need to preserve its credibility. It is also our strong conviction that a credible enlargement process based on merits and with clear conditionality is the best instrument to advance our partnership with the region. The European perspective remains a unique tool to foster stability and prosperity, which only the European Union can offer. We welcome that ministerial representatives of the Western Balkans have been invited to participate in the upcoming plenary meeting of the Conference on the Future of Europe this Saturday. On good neighbourly relations, existing bilateral agreements, including the Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighbourliness and Cooperation, need to be implemented in good faith by all parties. Pending bilateral issues between Bulgaria and North Macedonia need to be resolved as a matter of priority. The Commission has just published the enlargement package and progress reports, which take a comprehensive stock of our relations with the region and its progress on the EU path, and we look forward to the European Parliament’s resolutions on these reports.

– Mr President, thank you very much for holding this debate to discuss the outcome of the EU Western Balkans summit on 6 October. Our thanks too to the Slovenian Presidency for hosting the event. The summit was an important opportunity to reconfirm the European perspective of the Western Balkans and the deep links between the European Union and our Western Balkan partners. We are all Europe. We share the same values, geography, history and culture. But most of all, we share the responsibility to build a better common future. We owe it to our citizens. The enlargement process is at the core of our relations. It has a transformative power, upholding European values and supporting reforms. It is a strategic objective we share, which unites the whole region and the European Union. It is important that it is clearly stated in the summit declaration. The summit provided a clear analysis of the needs and reforms required, and a strong sense of prioritisation. Together, the European Union and the Western Balkans agreed on a number of tangible measures linked to the implementation of the Economic and Investment Plan. This plan remains the EU’s blueprint for financial engagement in the region and aims to mobilise EUR 30 billion to spur the long-term recovery of the Western Balkans and foster their convergence with the EU. We agreed on an agenda on innovation, research, education, culture, youth and sport. In practice, this means promoting scientific excellence, reforming the region’s education systems, creating further opportunities for youth, and hopefully reversing the trend of brain drain from the region. We have also prepared a detailed action plan for the implementation of the Green Agenda to support energy transition, a circular economy, the reduction of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, the protection of biodiversity, and sustainable farming and food production. We also made progress on developing a roadmap and glide path for the voluntary reduction of roaming charges to roam like at home. We want to extend the way we use our mobile connections anywhere in the EU to the region, without crippling costs. These are not only tangible measures for citizens in the region. It shows how closely EU policy priorities are mirrored in our work with the region. This is also reflected in the agreement to enhance cooperation between the EU and Western Balkan partners on core security issues such as cyber, hybrid, disinformation, space issues and military mobility, countering illicit firearms trafficking, and counterterrorism. A clear message was also that reforms in the region are still needed. This includes reforms related to political and economic governance, rule of law and media freedom, and promoting a vibrant civil society. Further and decisive efforts by the Western Balkans are also crucial to deliver on their commitment to establish a common regional market. Of course, the EU will continue to support the region in those efforts, including through a recently adopted instrument on pre-accession assistance. In Brdo, we also agreed to hold regular summits with the region. This confirms the importance of this part of Europe to the European Union. Over the past months, we have followed a series of public and civic initiatives and contributions by citizens from the region to the Conference on the Future of Europe. And indeed, we should listen to all Europeans, including those in the Western Balkans, on issues that matter for our common future.

– Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for what has been a very lively debate. As many of you have said, this political agreement which we have reached is truly historic, and the Commission will work at full speed to implement it. In parallel, the Commission will continue working on its business tax agenda. Firstly, by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion. Here, the Commission is already preparing new legislative initiatives that will enhance tax transparency and bring new elements under the umbrella of automatic exchanges of information to reinforce further the fight against tax evasion and avoidance. This includes a proposal before the end of this year to tackle the misuse of shell companies for tax purposes in the EU. Commissioner Gentiloni already touched on this when he spoke here two weeks ago. Secondly, safeguarding revenues needed for our recovery and growth, while making us more competitive. The Commission will launch a broader reflection on the right tax mix for the future, and this reflection should conclude in 2022 in a Tax Symposium on the ‘EU tax mix on the road to 2050’, in which I would invite you all to actively participate. The Commission counts on the support of the European Parliament to make progress on this agenda quickly and with the highest level of ambition.

– Mr President, last week’s endorsement by G20 finance ministers and the forthcoming endorsement by G20 leaders marks a key step towards the implementation of the historic global tax reform agreed in early October. With 136 jurisdictions on board, including developing countries, all G20 members, all OECD members, and all EU Member States that are part of the inclusive framework, this is nothing less than a tax revolution and a huge success for multilateralism. We should be proud of it. As we emerge from the shadow of the pandemic, we have a unique opportunity to rebuild our economies on a new footing. We want to see not just a rebound, but a new era of sustained and sustainable growth. The Pandora Papers were another reminder of the injustices that characterise the global economic system today. The green and digital transition can only happen if it is based on fair taxation. Everyone must pay their fair share. So this reset of global corporate taxation is a fundamental part of the change we need to see. Reaching this agreement is a major step forward in creating fairness in our global tax system. But we are not there yet. We must now work swiftly to ensure the effective implementation of this major tax reform. This is why, next to the key parameters for both pillars laid down in the agreement, we have also agreed on an implementation roadmap for both Pillar One and Pillar Two. We are working on a very ambitious timeline. The OECD Secretariat is planning to finalise the Pillar Two model rules in five weeks. The text of the Pillar One multilateral convention should be finalised in spring of 2022. I must insist that we all do our utmost to deliver on this timeline of the implementation roadmap. Citizens do not ask for political agreements. They ask for effective action. On our side, once the agreement is finalised the Commission will move very quickly to put it into practice in the EU. DG TAXUD is already drafting the directive for Pillar Two to be tabled as swiftly as possible once the model rules are all set at OECD level. We will also ensure a consistent and comprehensive implementation of Pillar One at EU level. The European Commission has worked hard to drive forward this international effort. Getting to this point has required difficult choices for many countries, both in the EU and elsewhere. A spirit of compromise and common interest in Europe and worldwide enabled us to get here. We should be proud of this triumph for multilateralism. Now we must move forward together and without delay.

– Mr President, I have really welcomed this debate, and I think we all agree that, if the current system worked, we wouldn’t be reviewing it. So I welcome your support for our July package. It’s really important that you work hard and fast on this proposal. I want to speak to some of the points that were raised. To Mr Beck, who I think is not in the Chamber, we are not abolishing, and have no intention to abolish, cash. Cash is king, but cash must be clean, and, as we’ve heard in this debate, there is a lot of dirty cash floating through our financial system in Europe, and it has got to stop. Mr Kelleher referred to the truth behind the dirty money, which is crimes against society, against children, and against women. It is just an evil pursuit and we have got to stop criminals in their tracks. So this is not just a financial issue. This is a massive social issue that we have a responsibility to address. When it comes to the idea of the tools we have, yes, we will use, and are using, all of the tools available, as I outlined in my opening remarks. Specifically on beneficial ownership, we are looking very closely at the issue of beneficial ownership in a specific number of Member States, and we are vigilant. On crypto, as was referred to earlier, yes, this area is now non—transparent, and in our new proposals there will be transparency on the transactions. So I deeply appreciate the debate here this evening and the passion you bring to it. This is a very important issue for us, and I want to assure you, as I said at the outset, not only will we implement the new proposals and work with you on them, we will continue to expect full implementation of existing rules in our Member States. But the truth is that the fight against money laundering is a global fight, and therefore it requires global action. I think this was particularly shown, again, by the Pandora Papers investigation. At this stage, it is still to be determined whether, besides tax evasion, crimes related to the illicit source of wealth are involved. The Commission and Member States are working hard in the Financial Action Task Force to ensure that international standards are robust and up to date, including in the area of the transparency, as I have said, of beneficial ownership. This is a key area. But our anti-money laundering (AML) system is only as strong as its weakest link, and this is why we need more Europe in this area. We need more Europe to create bridges between supervisors, among financial intelligence units (FIUs) and between supervisors and FIUs, and we need bridges to ensure that the work carried out on the prevention side effectively feeds into the work of investigators, public prosecutors and asset recovery officers. Our goal is not only to prevent financial crime, but also to bring criminals to justice and deprive them of their illicit proceeds. I count on your full support in the future negotiations on our AML package. We will work hard and we will work fast, and, if successful, we will reduce and eliminate the crime of money laundering and the financing of terrorism. I believe we can do this together.

– Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to outline our very determined efforts to fight money laundering and how the Commission is working to ensure the effective application of existing anti-money laundering rules. We adopted a very ambitious anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) package on 20 July and I look forward to working with Parliament to reach a swift adoption. This package should be seen in the context of a comprehensive AML/CFT policy at Union level. Enforcement is a key element of that comprehensive policy. Effective implementation of the existing AML rules is at the very core of our approach to fighting money laundering. And over the years since the first AML Directive in 1991, the EU has been reinforcing its anti-money laundering rules. These rules are now amongst the toughest in the world and will be further strengthened once the July 2021 AML package is adopted. But they will only be effective if they are enforced equally across the board. This is confirmed by the work carried out by this Parliament through the Panama Papers Inquiry Committee and the TAX3 Special Committee. This was also confirmed by the debate that this House had a fortnight ago about the Pandora Papers. In the European Union, we need to ensure that beneficial ownership registers are up and running and fully populated. We will use our enforcement powers under the Treaty to that end, and we will work in international forums to make sure that other jurisdictions will follow suit by bringing about full transparency of beneficial ownership. Honourable members, we share the same ambition: effective implementation, one of the pillars of our AML policy, must remain at the centre of all our actions. Our enforcement approach to AML is based on several tools available to the Commission. First, a thorough control of transposition. We are determined that our existing rules on AML are fully implemented, even as we negotiate the new proposals. And let me be very clear: existing legislation must be fully and correctly transposed and applied on the ground in our Member States. On the fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD4), we started with infringement procedures against all Member States for incomplete or incorrect transposition. Today, there are three ongoing non-conformity cases – all of them at the stage of letters of formal notice. On the fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5), the Commission sent letters of formal notice to 16 Member States on the grounds of partial or non-transposition. Five Member States have reached the stage of reasoned opinion. One letter of formal notice has already been sent for incorrect transposition. More letters are likely to follow in the coming months as we complete conformity checks. Transposing AMLD4 and AMLD5 was a very difficult process for Member States. We in the Commission supported the efforts of Member States by cooperating with them, while in parallel launching formal infringement proceedings. The special report of the European Court of Auditors on AML identified the limited resources the Commission has to carry out transposition checks. But I want to say that even with those limited resources – and I assure you of this – we are doing our utmost to implement the recommendations in the report and to ensure that AMLD is fully and correctly transposed. A second tool available to us is to ensure effective implementation of the AML Directive, and this involves a proactive look at the state of play of application of the rules as transposed in the national laws of Member States. The Council of Europe is conducting a study on the effective implementation of the AML framework in each Member State, including on—site visits to all Member States and looking at core provisions of our rules, for example, whether supervisors and financial intelligence units are sufficiently staffed; the functioning of registers of beneficial ownership, and how the supervision of the non-financial sector is carried out. Another tool we use are country-specific recommendations (CSRs) within the European Semester. Here, the Commission issued 11 AML-related CSRs last year, and we plan to make greater use of the semester for AML in the next cycle. This year, most Member States that have received CSRs have included AML in the Recovery and Resilience Plans. Next Generation EU provides further leverage for monitoring progress in Member States. Where measures on AML have been included in Member States’ plans, their implementation will be monitored through milestones and targets. The European Banking Authority (EBA) also has powers in the field of anti-money laundering, particularly in relation to investigating whether a national supervisor has breached Union law when carrying out its tasks. We expect the EBA to make full use of its powers. In addition to national competent authorities, it is important to involve civil society. The Commission is currently implementing a pilot project requested by Parliament called ‘Capacity building, programmatic development and communication in the context of the fight against money laundering and financial crimes’. This is aimed at increasing AML awareness and empowering civil society in this area. The proposals presented in our 20 July AML package will strengthen the current framework. Under the new AML Regulation, obliged entities will be subject to directly applicable rules. In particular, the AML Regulation provides for harmonised requirements for consumer due diligence, and such requirements are more detailed and granular than at present and will be further refined via implementing legislation prepared by the future EU AML authority. The single rulebook will also further specify our rules on beneficial ownership, to improve our knowledge of who is behind a transaction and to exercise its control over a company or legal arrangement or entity. These new rules will clarify the concept of control and increase the powers of registers to get accurate information. We fully share the findings of the European Court of Auditors, which viewed the AML package as an opportunity for the Commission and the co—legislators to remedy the fragmentation of the EU AML framework. For enforcement to be as efficient and effective as possible, we urgently need an AML single rulebook. With this new legislative package, the Commission has fully delivered on this recommendation from the European Court of Auditors. A new EU supervisory authority, the EU AML Authority (AMLA), will have a key role in ensuring that all national authorities effectively implement the single rulebook. In order to best prepare the ground for the new authority, in particular with respect to the supervision of the non-financial sector and the functioning of financial intelligence units (FIUs), Member States need to make tangible headway in efficiently implementing the AML framework. With this in mind, we will follow up on the findings of the Council of Europe report. AMLA, the new authority, will also have the possibility to conclude working arrangements with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Europol, Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to ensure good cooperation of all actors, as it is critical to bridge the gaps between the preventative and repressive strands of the EU AML framework. As regards the law enforcement angle, the fight against criminal finances will play a prominent role under the new European multidisciplinary platform against criminal threats (EMPACT) 2021-2025 initiative, the flagship instrument for cooperation among Member States, agencies and EU bodies to fight organised crime. The creation of the European Financial and Economic Crime Centre at Europol in June 2020 is a significant step to reinforce law enforcement efforts against financial crimes. We will bolster these efforts by supporting operational cooperation at the Anti-Money Laundering Operational Network (AMON) of money laundering investigators and by proposing, next year, stronger rules on asset recovery and confiscation to ensure that crime does not pay. AML is an area where the smooth exchange of information is crucial. One of the priorities of the Commission in this area was to take over the management of the FIU.net system, pending its transfer to AMLA in the future, and I am happy to confirm to the House that that transfer has now been successfully completed. We expect the new authority to be established in 2023 and to start its activities in 2024. The direct supervision of certain high-risk financial entities will only begin in 2026, which is when AMLA will reach its full staffing. Until then, our commitment to fighting money laundering, by all possible means, remains strong and unchanged, and I’m happy to count on this House’s continued support on this very important issue. Thank you, colleagues, for your engagement. I look forward to hearing your views.