This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

Hello, everyone.

Thank you for joining us this morning for the press conference on the cloud and AI Development Act.

This morning we're joined by the two co-operators in charge of steering this file through Parliament's committees.

We have with us Diego Molano for the Industry Committee and Reinier van Lanschot for the, Internal Market Committee.

A few house Keeping rules before we give the floor to the two MEPs.

This press conference is web streamed and recorded on Parliament website.

We have interpretation today in English, French, Spanish, and Dutch,

and we'll do a Q&A session as usual right after the remarks of the members.

So I'll give the floor first to Mr. Soulier. Thank you. Good morning everybody. I'm going to speak in Spanish. So buenos dias a todos. Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to start by, thanking, my colleague, Reiner, as well as,

both of our teams for the very constructive work that has led to us, here.

Now we come from very different political families.

We don't always share the same priorities or the same way of, understanding regulation.

But there's one thing we do share,

and that is a one fundamental conviction that Europe cannot continue to depend on technologies that are increasingly essential to our economies,

our security, and our future.

And that's why we've been working together on this draft regulation, developing the cloud and AI Development Act, the CADA for short.

Not for too long, Europe has shown that it's able to regulate technology,

but it hasn't shown the same ability to develop it.

We have top level researchers, we have innovative enterprises, we have a solid industrial base,

and we have a single market of 450 million people.

And yet when we talk about cloud infrastructure, AI, or computing capacity,

we continue to depend largely on a very small number of.

Suppliers from outside of Europe, it's not just a question of economic competitiveness here.

It's it's a question of resilience, security,

and our ability to take our own decisions because technological sovereignty is not just a question of closing Europe off to the rest of the world.

It's about ensuring that Europe has the capacity to act, to compete, and to choose,

and sovereignty without its own technological, sovereignty, capacity really is not worth the paper it's written on. And that's what our work is about.

Today we want to outline three major priorities in our proposal. First, Europe needs to build.

We cannot aspire to be global leaders in AI if we don't have the infrastructure we need to develop AI and deploy AI. We need to have increased computing capacity. We need to have more data centers.

We need to have reliable access to energy, and above all, we need investment.

Europe needs to become a place where people want companies want to invest, innovate and grow.

For that we need to overcome barriers that have been holding us back for years,

excessively lengthy, permitting processes, lack of, integration, and more.

So our roadmap would ensure faster, more reliable development of data centers through the development of acceleration zones and simplified permitting.

Now these projects at the same time need to respect environmental rules and take into account the communities that host them.

Now speed in deployment and environmental responsibility should not be opposing aims.

Legal certainty is a requirement to ensure long term investment.

We want European companies, including smaller operators, to have real opportunities to participate in this growth,

but we need to continue to be open to international investment as well.

Our aim is not to remove incentives to foreign investment.

It is to ensure that investment reaches Europe.

In a way that it strengthens our own technological capacities,

our second priority is to have a credible, proportionate, and applicable digital sovereignty framework.

This is probably one of the core parts of our proposal.

Currently, Europe runs the risk of having different cloud sovereignty rules applied at national level. This will increase costs, raise uncertainty.

And fragment the single market, which really is our greatest competitive, benefit.

We need to have a common framework, not 27 different interpretations of what a sovereign cloud infrastructure should mean, and this should be risk-based.

Not all services need the same level of protection.

An administration doesn't have the same level of security concerns as a specialized government authority or critical infrastructure.

That's why we identify four different levels of guarantees and sovereignty based on the sensitivity of each activity.

The aim is to ensure protection where it's truly needed without imposing regulations that are too burdensome on everyone.

At the same time, we want to ensure that the most critical services in Europe are managed by private companies,

the health, energy infrastructure are examples of this.

Their resilience is required, whether it's a public or a private supplier. Anything above that should be proportionate.

It should focus on what is critical and ensure coordination.

We cannot say that we want to support European competition without supporting those who will provide it.

And thirdly, we need to invest in European capacities.

One of the problems is that cloud suppliers, cloud providers, it's not a lack of innovation,

it's a lack of scale of size that allows them to compete internationally.

And here public support could provide key assistance.

Public administrators are major procurers of digital services, so their decisions can create markets where European providers can develop,

invest, and grow in their technologies, but we need to be realistic.

Public administrations need reliable, competitive solutions and a good cost-benefit, relationship.

So that's why we need to ensure that there are guarantees in place that ensure the necessary flexibility when they allow them choose Europe when there are options available,

and this leads me to my last comment.

Sovereignty and international cooperation are not mutually exclusive.

Europe needs to continue to work with its trusted international partners. Technology expertise is international.

We need to continue to tap that international expertise, but it cannot go at the expense of our most sensitive sectors.

That's why we define different levels of guarantee, including a fast track access for trusted partners under clearly defined rules.

Under European control, so ladies and gentlemen, this draft,

this joint draft is the result of serious negotiations between different political groups with different political views.

It's not like in other situations where we drafted it separately and then cobbled it together.

This is a true agreement we've worked together.

To develop a joint text which ensures implementation, sovereignty, combining it with openness and competitiveness,

and that's what this text needs because our aim cannot be simply to try and regulate our digital future.

Our aim must be to ensure that Europe has the capacity to build this future. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning and thanks everybody for being here, especially since it's a Belgian bank holiday.

I appreciate that you are here with us.

So Digital policy is not just about technology. It's also hard geopolitics. Washington sanctioned the International Criminal Court.

Ukraine woke up to find its satellite terminals no longer works, and that decision was taken in Washington, not in Kiev.

And when Europe wants its own satellite operators, a US diplomat threatened with devastating consequences.

Our critical systems run on someone else's technology, and someone else can switch it off.

Today a court, tomorrow, a ministry, a hospital, a grid operator.

Do you think the US would let the Pentagon on Chinese cloud?

Of course not, and Europe shouldn't do those things either.

At the same time, next week we will see Anthropic's IPO, potentially the biggest in history.

We see an increase in cybercrime, and we finally have an EU summit on AI.

Plus, AI is playing a bigger role in the lives of many Europeans, so it's clear that on the one hand,

we need to decrease our dependency and on the other hand, build our own AI.

I'm very proud that we can present our report today.

Diego Molano and I and our teams worked very hard to make this in I think 7 weeks possible,

the entire report, and I want to thank you for your professional and constructive collaboration.

With today's report, we have one goal finally building a European digital ecosystem.

A continent that owns its digital infrastructure owns and controls its future.

Our report improves the act for European citizens, European companies, and European independence. I'll highlight three aspects as well.

Sets acceleration zones to speed up the build of new data centers.

Too often nowadays, data centers land in a community like a spaceship.

Nobody asked, nobody explained, and nobody made sure that the local community benefits. Our report changes that.

With our plan, local communities are involved before a zone is chosen, and,

most importantly, we make sure acceleration zones directly benefit the communities that host them.

For some communities, it may be reusing the heat to power schools free of charge.

For others it might be direct investment in public infrastructure.

We set higher sustainability requirements and give European companies a head start to access the benefits of acceleration zones.

Digital independence is something we build for citizens, with citizens, for European businesses, with European businesses.

We also create in one European market, one label.

When a cloud is certified as sovereign, that word must mean the same thing in Lisbon as it means in Helsinki,

and the Commission proposal left the door open to label shopping and sovereignty washing.

You could find the most lenient country, the most lenient auditor, get your stamp. That's no longer happening.

Our report shuts that door with accredited auditors, common rules, and the same level for the same sector everywhere. That brings predictability and trust. It's time to back our own companies.

Long before they were giants, American cloud companies had an anchor customer, the US government. Europe did the opposite.

Too often our public authorities buy foreign and by default.

In 10 years,

European cloud providers' share of our own market halved from around 30 to 15% to less than 15%. So we should drop our inferiority complex.

Europe has brilliant businesses, and they are not asking for subsidies. They are asking for customers.

That's at the heart of our proposal public demand as the lead market for European providers.

Also, many of Europe's most essential services are run by private operators.

A power plant, a private hospital, or an airport is no less critical because it is privately owned.

We therefore make sure to increase the scope and put the most critical activities on sovereign clouds as well,

making payments, accessing healthcare, or heating your home. It should all just work.

Public procurement becomes a lead market for European providers.

When European taxpayers buy their most sensitive cloud services, that money should build European capacity.

We also keep the opening of the highest level to third country providers narrow, and we want audits that a startup can actually afford.

So to close, our report serves European citizens, European companies, and European independence.

In the months ahead, in close collaboration with Diego and his team, we look forward to reaching a broad compromise in Parliament.

This is how we become resilient enough to weather setbacks and strong enough to build our own European technology,

a hopeful future we build ourselves. Thank you. Thank you.

We can now open the floor for questions from journalists online and in the room.

You can raise your hand and please just state the name of your media before you ask your question. Do you have any questions? Yeah, in the back? Can you hear me? Yes, great. Thank you.

Leli tourte, thank you very much for the presentation.

I don't have the specifics of the draft report, yet, so maybe the question is gonna be, clear, the, the,

the answer to that question is gonna be clear once I have the documents under my eyes,

but, I wanted to know what's, was your, take on the, the commission's proposal.

To have, very much centralized powers in terms of the risk assessments,

conducted by member states on their cloud usage.

I seem to remember that in the proposal, when member states conduct risk assessments and where the Commission disagrees, the Commission is implemented to adopt,

is empowered to adopt some acts, I think implementing acts or delegated acts to,

to change, the results of the evaluation. Is that something that you agree with?

I think member states have changed that idea in their own, first draft compromise.

So, what do you make of that and, and do you have a common position on that yet? Thank you. Yes, OK, thank you.

So for us the most important things are that we create clarity for businesses across Europe, so we have tried to specify more what exactly is in the category of the different sovereignty levels, and we want to make sure that there is sovereignty shopping or label shopping across the continent,

so we do give the Commission certain powers to assess what exactly is labeled a certain level and in certain cases want them to be able to make sure that it is harmonized across the continent.

Yeah, in addition to that, is, the, the main objective, as Rene was explaining is to have 27 different interpretations and have a clear rules for everybody to provide certainty to the market and security to the,

to the company that has to provide those services.

And maybe to add one last thing,

I think in general what we saw is that the Commission proposal took a good step forward in the direction of European digital independence and that the first draft of the European Council actually took a step towards a more national way of organizing this.

With less promoting of European businesses,

and we take a step in the other direction where actually we want to strengthen the European business ecosystem more and want to make sure that it's harmonized across the continent. Thank you. Do you have more questions? Yes, please. Hi, this is Masha Bak. I work for AmEx. I have a couple of questions.

The first one is regarding the 4, levels, for risk assessment.

A lot of companies have said that these, levels are very hard to comply with, and, for the fourth level it's,

it's even possible that none of the European companies could,

and you talked about, simplifying those, so can you share more details?

My second question is regarding, partner countries, so to speak, so in the UK there has been a concern that, some of the,

some of the data localization and personnel localization and infrastructure localization requirements could may go against trade agreements with the UK,

UK companies have also expressed a lot of concern that they will be shut out from the European market.

So if you can answer that, thank you very much.

You want to go first, OK, so the, the, what we have been trying, in this draft, and this is only the first step of the process of the legislative process in the European Parliament,

we still need to get now, communication and collaboration with the other groups is to,

to try to give clarity to those levels, OK, as they were defined by the Commission.

So probably, we, we are going to get some,

we will get some amendments from coming from the groups to even work harder and, and to test you to simplify more.

But at this point what we agreed was to,

to provide that kind kind of clarity and security on those definition of the, of the four different levels.

And in that regards, in the other, the other question about the where data is going to be located and so at the end.

It is important for those critical services and that critical data to be under our control, under our sovereignty,

which means for us the capacity to decide when it really matters what to do with the services and with the data.

So this is,

this has been the approach so far and obviously probably there will be some more amendments coming in that perspective.

Yes, and firstly on the levels and whether European companies can meet it, I think we have met companies that think they can deliver all the levels,

and the European Commission also guarantees that sometimes it's a combination of companies that can already provide Level 4,

but this can also be an encouragement for European companies to take steps to reach that level.

And in general, I think I have a lot of confidence in European businesses, more trust in them than I I have trust in the thousands of lobbyists of other foreign big companies that want to project a certain image that Could not even deliver that,

so I think European businesses some can already make it and others will be able to make it.

Then on the simplification of these levels, I think we've made good steps in that direction to create more clarity.

On the UK in general as a member of Volt, the pan-European movement founded after Brexit with a chapter of Volt in the UK as well,

I have members of my own political party, UK citizens living in the UK since Brexit happened. I have been advocating for reunion. I also work on defense.

For me, strengthening the ties with the UK is super important, and I think with the steps we've taken,

it is still quite clear that if the conditions are met, UK businesses could, for example, still comply with Level 3. Thank you. Do you have any follow-ups? Yeah, go ahead. Thank you.

This is Otis Buch from the Dutch Brussels Newer. I have a question to you, Valance.

You very quickly touched upon that we finally have an AI summit.

I'm wondering what do you hope that the leaders will talk about, what path do they choose, and what are the most important things for you they agree on.

Thanks, A summit, I think, gives us the opportunity to do three things.

The first one is there is a need for global regulation to minimize the risks that AI brings,

and I think Europe can take a step towards that.

So I would like that to happen in this summit where they say, OK,

we're going to lead an effort to make sure that the biggest risks of AI are actually minimized.

At the same time,

I started this and we are working on this because we have a clear belief that we should build our own AI as well and we should build our own digital infrastructure.

So the second thing I want to see from this AI summit is that our national heads of state and prime ministers actually also take concrete steps towards building our own digital infrastructure.

The Dutch government last week came with a strategy on AI.

Finally, I'm happy they created a strategy, but zero of the proposals are backed by money.

So it's an expression of a desire, but it's not a plan of action that leads to concrete changes that make our continent and our country more digitally independent,

plus makes us able to seize the opportunities that also come with the AI economy. So that's the second thing. Firstly, minimizing the risks. Second is building our own infrastructure.

And thirdly, we now see that the Council is taking steps towards a more national approach when it comes to this entire file specifically,

but also more broader when it comes to their own digital infrastructure, and that I think is a huge mistake.

So the third thing I want is not 27 different fragmented ways of going about it,

but one European action plan. Thank you.

If we do have any more questions, otherwise, we can do the closing remarks by the two corrupt, OK, please. I'm, I'm sorry, I forgot one question.

So there will be an EU UK summit soon.

Is there, is there any, talks on CAA, gonna happen then? I'm not aware of that actually.

It would be logical if these conversations in the EUU UK summit also include that.

There's a lot of things on the agenda that we also need to make sure that the safe investment program on the defense industry and stuff are addressed properly.

So I think there's a huge agenda when it comes to the EU UK summit, and it would be smart to also address this, but we have not been involved in that. Thank you.

I'll give the floor to the rapporteurs if they have something to add.

OK, so thank you very much for your questions.

I would like to conclude with a very simple message. Europe needs to take a decision.

We cannot continue, or we can continue being dependent on technology developed elsewhere, or we can ensure that our companies start to invest and innovate and I believe that we can opt for the second option,

and this requires infrastructure investment to strengthen technological capacity and develop the necessary.

Capacity that we need to, avoid excessive bureaucracy and fragmentation of our single market.

Today with my colleague Reinel we presented this starting point, in order to launch this work in the European Parliament, and we still have a long road ahead, and,

and we hope to continue work in a constructive manner with our colleagues, with the Commission, with the Council,

and with the industry, but I think we need to, I think we've, Taken a major step forward.

We shouldn't choose between the sovereignty and compositives. We need both. And that they strengthen each other.

This is the ambition behind our joint draft.

Thank you very much for your attention today. Thank you.

Thanks everybody for being here again on this bank holiday and also thank you for your questions. Let me end with where I began.

This act is about sovereignty, but there is no sovereignty without European solutions, and I think Diego and I share that ambition that in the years to come,

thanks to our work and the work of all our colleagues that we now start in the process with the rest of the Parliament,

Europe's digital ecosystem can flourish with European companies at its heart.

And I also want to take a moment to express the fact that I want to compliment the collaboration we've had so far and you specifically as an independent in ECR with a huge technical background.

The collaboration we've had was very good and constructive, and I think it's worth highlighting, and I hope we can continue down this path.

Lastly,

I want to express the urgency towards our capitals that they should finally start trusting European companies when it comes to tech.

Because I'm convinced of one thing, and that is that European tech has huge potential,

and we just need to give the clear signal to our companies that we will back them. So let's do it. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone.

And a final piece of information, the report should be published online tomorrow, and it's going to be discussed in a joint committee on the first of December,

and for the moment, the committee vote is foreseen for mid-March and plenary for April, but this is all to be foreseen.

Thank you so much for coming and have a nice day. Thank you. Thanks.