Debate contributions by Adina VĂLEAN

Mr President, according to our Rules of Procedure, I need to ask you for the referral back to the IMCO Committee so that we can start the interinstitutional negotiations.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, thank you for all your contributions to this debate. I have noticed once again that the challenges we had when we started to discuss this directive regarding the representation of the interests of third countries remain. The fact that it created a lot of expectation, a lot of people imagine that this is going to solve the illegal interference, or it is aiming to do so. It is not that: it is just an exercise of transparency in a European Union in which we have too little transparent information about who is paying for lobby activities meant to influence policy‑making. At the beginning, the Commissioner said that fewer than 1000 entities are going to be affected by this directive, because this is what we know. It is just a niche. It's just about the entities who are paid to lobby by sponsors originating as foreign governments or other organisations in which a foreign government has a direct interest. So it is not aimed at solving all the problems around foreign influence. We have an ecosystem of institutions in Member States, at European level, which are going to deal with the legal representation. This aim of this directive is just to open a window to show people who is paid by whom to influence policy‑making. It's legitimate, it's simple, it's something we can count on, and it's not targeting specific entities. It's just going to ask all those individuals, NGOs, companies who are conducting such activities to register and show exactly who they are representing. It is proportionate, it is minimum harmonisation and it is something fair and asked for by our citizens. I really hope that you will support this proposal tomorrow. And again, thank you very much to all those who have worked to bring forward the directive in this latest form.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, complex political decision‑making is not a flaw of democracy, it is one of its defining features. But complexity can obscure processes, and when things become hard to follow, trust becomes vulnerable. This is why transparency must be a shared political value; not a matter of right or left, but a matter of political necessity, and any responsible policymaker should be able to understand, when meeting an individual or an organisation, what interests they represent. Eight in ten Europeans are concerned about foreign countries' influence over the EU, so this directive is a first step to address this concern; a foundation for a potentially more ambitious framework in the future. As legislators, we have made some important changes and clarifications to bring more clarity and strength to the proposal, so let me now outline what our proposed changes actually deliver for citizens, for companies and for Member States. First, the concrete result: an interoperable, EU‑wide interface. It will be possible to see all registered entities across Europe, and it is providing interest‑representation services on behalf of third countries. National and regional registers will connect through a single technical infrastructure, making verification simple, fast and consistent. Second, the agreed text rests on minimum harmonisation. We set common EU standards without impacting Member States that already have robust systems. We create a genuine level playing‑field while respecting national choices. Third, we ensured a low bureaucratic footprint: Member States may keep their current registers and authorities. Reporting requirements remain minimal for individuals and entities. The goal is transparency, not new layers of paperwork. Fourth, we build strong safeguards against abuse and stigmatisation. Registration is mandatory, but not always public: in very specific cases where disclosure could endanger individuals or organisations because of the country they work for, we allow protection. This was essential and it is now clearly in the text. Fifth, we uphold high standards on fundamental rights. The directive respects human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout. We worked carefully, line by line, to ensure that this balance holds. Sixth, we kept proportionate sanctions; for failure of registration we propose administrative sanctions. So colleagues, this directive is not about ideology. It is not about suspicion or punishment. It is about ensuring that European democracy has the transparency it needs to remain strong in a difficult geopolitical environment. I thank all the political groups, and especially the shadow rapporteurs, who engaged in very hard and constructive discussions and hard work, and I ask for your support for tomorrow's vote.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, I welcome the Commission's digital package. Simplification done well should lead to efficiency and competitiveness. We must admit that our traditional precautionary approach has sometimes been disproportionate. We regulated some times before we innovated, and I am not sure this is a record to take pride in. Digitalisation drives economic success and economic success finances new technologies. Our precautions must become constructive and create a clear link between digitalisation and productivity. The real question is not how much infrastructure we build, but how we use it. We need automated factories, smart energy grids, computing power for research. The unpopular truth is that the loading speed of social media videos – or of the offers on platforms or entertainment in general – matter very little. Productivity matters more. So the next steps are crucial, and the Commission must take a bold approach to address the issues that industry once solved: the implementation of the measures proposed in the Draghi report, consolidation versus competition model in the telecoms market, reform of spectrum policy, just to name a few priorities. We should learn from past mistakes in which we hesitated to go through with bold policies, and we end up with 4G+ instead of 5G standalone, and that says it all.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, I see there is a lot of interest in this subject. I am happy to see that and a lot of very good ideas around. I think it is important because we have the responsibility to get the public procurement rules right. Nowadays, public money is a scarce commodity. We finance the green transition, we strive to grow sectors in Europe to break free from geopolitical dependencies, we want to rearm Europe. The competition for public funds will be fierce. So we need clarity on criteria to improve transparency and build trust. We also need flexibility. Prices rise, labour shifts – procurement rules must reflect reality: not with blank cheques, but with common sense. We should be able to adapt and evolve. We have in front of us a good, balanced text that is focused on efficiency, grounded in reality and aimed at delivering real value for Europeans. I encourage you to support it.

Mr President, Commissioner Ribera, colleagues, why are we here today debating the Green Deal? It began as a generous, forward‑looking idea, a vision of sustainability and innovation, a promise that Europe would lead industrially in the green transition. We told our citizens this was their license to growth and prosperity. Yet now, this vision feels tarnished. Today, for too many, it became a source of hardship, energy bills, cost of living, uncertainty of the jobs, no tangible benefits. Our industries are burdened by multiple taxes and a complex web of regulation. The idea behind the Green Deal remains valid, but we must take a step back to critically and pragmatically reassess the tools we are using. And while the Commission has pledged to improve the competitiveness of the EU, we must also ask: where is the money coming from? You have to be rich to afford a Green Deal. Our investment model relies on a combination of public resources and excessive taxation or penalties, rather than fostering conditions where private investors are encouraged to channel their money into building new markets. Looking at our global competitors, we see a different approach, one that incentivises rather than penalises industries, attracting private investment, fostering innovation and building markets for the future. So if we want the Green Deal to succeed, it must be an engine for growth, for our people, for our industries and for Europe as a whole. It must work for everyone.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, disinformation and misinformation are like cracks in a foundation. Small at first, almost invisible, but if left unchecked, they can spread and erode trust, weakening the very structures that hold our societies together. Today, the cracks are amplified on very large online platforms – the town squares of our digital age. Over the last decade, the role of these platforms has grown immensely. They are no longer just tools for entertainment. They have become gatekeepers of information, influencing elections and even shaping global events. With such immense influence comes immense responsibility. Platforms must take ownership of their power they hold and ensure their digital spaces are safe, transparent and accountable. Here, in the European Union, we have one of the most advanced regulatory frameworks in the world. Yet a rule book is like a compass: it points us in the right direction, but the real work lies in taking action. The challenge now, first, is ensuring effective enforcement and implementation, starting by building expertise at the institutional level across the European Union. Second, social networks cannot afford to stand on the sidelines. If they are to function in the European Union market, they must become partners – partners to the institutions, authorities and society as a whole. And this is not a regulatory requirement. It is a shared responsibility.