Home Nikola BARTŮŠEK

I voted against the proposal to transform the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) and the Subcommittee on Public Health (SANT) into standing committees for several reasons. Firstly, the method used to present the proposal was problematic, as it was negotiated behind closed doors by a select few groups (EPP, Renew, and S&D) and finalized without proper consultation with other groups. This lack of transparency undermines democratic decision-making.
Substantively, there is no clear need or added value in upgrading these subcommittees. The move appears to signal an unnecessary expansion of EU powers into areas where Member States already hold significant competence, risking over-centralization. Furthermore, creating new standing committees would generate additional public expenses, a concern for fiscal responsibility.
Regarding SEDE, the new committee's scope risks overlapping with other committees, such as ITRE, especially in areas like the defence industry. This duplication could lead to inefficiencies and conflicts over responsibilities. As for SANT, its proposed mandate is already well-managed under existing structures, making the change redundant.
Overall, the proposal lacks sufficient justification, risks inefficiency and financial waste, and was developed through an undemocratic process. For these reasons, I opposed it.

I voted against the establishment of a special European Democracy Shield committee because the fight against hybrid attacks and disinformation is already effectively addressed by existing committees such as LIBE, AFET, and JURI. These committees possess the expertise and mandate to tackle these critical issues, making the creation of a new committee redundant.
Moreover, establishing a new committee, even on a temporary basis of 12 months, would lead to additional expenses for European taxpayers. At a time when fiscal responsibility is paramount, it is essential to prioritize efficiency and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts within the European Parliament.
This decision aligns with the broader goal of maintaining a streamlined and effective Parliament. Instead of creating new structures, the existing committees should be empowered to fully utilize their mandates and resources to address the challenges of hybrid attacks and disinformation. Strengthening coordination and optimizing the use of current capacities is a more cost-effective and practical solution.
For these reasons, I believe the proposal for a special European Democracy Shield committee was unnecessary and fiscally imprudent, and I therefore voted against it.

I voted against the establishment of a parliamentary committee to address housing because it oversteps the competencies assigned to the European Union under the European Treaties. While the housing crisis is a pressing issue for many Member States, housing markets across the EU vary significantly, requiring tailored, localized solutions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach at the EU level.
This is a clear case where the subsidiarity principle should apply, ensuring that decisions are made as closely as possible to the citizens they affect. Member States are better positioned to address their unique housing challenges, and creating an EU-level committee risks unnecessary interference and inefficiency.
Moreover, assigning housing to a parliamentary committee contradicts the foundational principles of EU governance and risks diverting resources away from areas where the EU has clear competence. For these reasons, I opposed the proposal.