Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, A lot of fairy tales are told in this debate. This culminates in the fact that the EPP leadership was not too bad to portray a Commissioner as Santa Claus on Sharepic and then not even to appear today to apologize for this action. But this faction has also told a lot of fairy tales about the content. It was about putting food security at risk. The opposite is the case. It was about the fact that renewable energies cannot be expanded – again here today. But the EPP also knows that just a few weeks ago we decided on the renewable energy legislation here with expansion acceleration, that we took back nature conservation in order to get there, and that does not contradict this law at all, but it goes hand in hand. Dear colleagues! Let's stop the fairy tales, let's stick to the facts, let's work for nature restoration! And to all EPP colleagues: This time you can't exchange them. Do the right thing! Vote with us for nature restoration in the European Union!

Mr President, thank you very much to Commissioner Jourová for her words. I hope we will have a successful trilogue. For that we have to really make sure that what we as Parliament will adopt tomorrow will make it to the final text. Unfortunately, the Council’s position is a bit less ambitious, but today’s discussion here made for me very clear that we in the European Parliament are united. We will send tomorrow a strong signal to every journalist in the European Union that his work, that her work will be protected and we will not allow in the future that they will be threatened with illegal, unfounded lawsuits. We will stand at their side. We will make sure that media freedom in the European Union prevails. And for that, we need a strong mandate. And I am very, very confident that we will get this strong mandate tomorrow from what I heard today. So, thank you very much to everyone who participated in this debate today. I will not come to an end without thanking all the colleagues who worked with me on this draft, on this report. So, thank you very much to all the shadows and also to the opinion—giving committees, because their insights have been very helpful for the final report. Dear colleagues, let me finish by underlining that we in the European Parliament will always defend media freedom, press freedom. We will stand at the sides of the ones under pressure and together we will protect them. And we will make sure that Daphne Caruana Galizia’s case, who was mentioned very often today, will not repeat in the European Union. Thank you very much. Let’s have a vote tomorrow which sends a very strong signal to the Council. We will not give up. We will fight for better protection for our journalists in the European Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, it is good that you are here today. We need to talk about an important issue. We need to talk about the fact that our legal systems are being exploited to suppress reporting in which we, as a general public, have a great interest. We need to talk about the fact that reporting, which is part of public discourse, is increasingly silenced by rich people, by people with a lot of power, by companies. That must not be the case in the European Union, which is proud that we have a freedom of the press that is strong. This must not happen in the European Union, because freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy. Without the control of the powerful, a democracy that works is inconceivable. Nevertheless, we see in more and more European countries that these lawsuits against journalists, NGOs, activists are becoming more common. These complaints are not made because you have a problem with something, with reporting, for example, but because you want to silence the victim. That's why it's not about winning the case, it's really about silencing people – journalists, NGOs, activists. We must not allow this to happen in the European Union. That is why I am so glad that the European Commission has made a proposal after we had already written a very strong own-initiative report in Parliament. I hope that, together with the Member States, we will then be able to put in place strong legislation that will better protect journalists and activists. Because that is urgently needed. What do we want as Parliament? We want victims of SLAPPs to be able to raise the ground that it is a SLAPP and therefore to be dismissed early in order to end lengthy and expensive proceedings early. Because it is not only that the lawsuit burdens the people who are affected by it, but it also leads to the fact that one thinks about whether one can afford the legal defense. You have to show up at court, and that also leads to others reporting less. And all of this is a real danger to our democracy. We want victims of SLAPPs to be entitled to compensation in order to actually make these lawsuits expensive for those who bring the lawsuit. And we want people who are victims of SLAPPs to be helped by reversing the burden of proof. This means: The person bringing the action must submit that it is not a SLAPP action. We call on Member States to create a one-stop shop for victims of SLAPPs, where they can get help, where psychologists work, where lawyers who specialize in SLAPPs work. And we want to achieve the revision of the international applicable private law: Brussels I and Rome II. Because unfortunately it is precisely these powerful companies, the rich people can afford to choose the place of jurisdiction, and then complain where they have the most chances of success, and not where they would actually have to complain. This, too, is another hurdle for those affected by SLAPPs. Now you can say: Well, that's a few cases. But there are more and more cases. I have just read in the media that a former head of a German tabloid is actually taking action against reporting on his private birthday party, even though he was the head of a newspaper that always reports on such celebrations, if there is even a slight interest in it. And he's not going against the Financial Times because he can imagine that the publisher can afford to fight through the lawsuit. But he's taking action against a small new business, and that's exactly an example of what it's all about. It is precisely this abuse that we must prevent, and for this we need a strong anti-SLAPP law. I hope we can say goodbye to this together tomorrow.

Madam President, Dear Commissioner, I am glad that you are here today! I am now talking about part of these three reports that we are talking about today, namely the report on sustainable marine fuels. In fact, it was very intense negotiations that we conducted. I believe that, as the European Union, we are taking a first step towards decarbonising shipping. As a Parliament, we are once again much more ambitious than the Commission was when it was the Council. That's good, especially that we finally have a mandate for e-fuels worldwide. From 2031 – this is a really good step and a necessary technology change that we have got here. Shore power supply is also central, especially where ports are also in cities, because it can also provide better air. Now on to the bad news: I believe that we have fallen short of the possibilities, especially in terms of shore-side electricity supply, but also in terms of the ambition to really achieve climate-neutral shipping by 2050. While we haven't been able to enforce this now due to the conservative majority here, the International Maritime Organization has just decided to be climate neutral by 2050. So we have taken a first step here, but we are far from reaching our goal, ladies and gentlemen.

Madam President, Commissioner! First of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Achille Variati, on his report. I think this has become a really good report because it makes it clear that we in the European Union are counting on us to reuse products. We give consumers the right that batteries are no longer permanently installed in these and other devices, but can actually be replaced, and this has been finite and really necessary. But we also set ambitious recycling rates for the raw materials used in the batteries. Honestly, we can't afford to waste lithium and other materials, but we have to recycle them, we have to reuse them. This ensures that we become more independent from the global market, but it also ensures that we become more sustainable, and we need both. I think that with this battery regulation we really got what we always say: Be more sustainable and actually think about the future. With these guidelines, we are able to make the European Union fit for this task. And I believe that is why we can accept this report with great agreement.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. With the destruction of the dam, we are witnessing another escalation by Putin's troops. Another terrible war crime directly in our neighbourhood, which also causes an environmental catastrophe to the humanitarian catastrophe caused by this flood. At least 150 tons of engine oil have leaked from the power plant and are polluting the river. There is further pollution from flooded petrol stations, chemical plants and sewage treatment plants that make the area uninhabitable for a long time. Two national parks in the delta of the river were destroyed, the fish population in the reservoir dies miserably. Due to the loss of the reservoir, water supplies for agriculture are declining and thus large parts of the agricultural area become unusable. The drinking water supply for the people is endangered and indeed also the cooling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. It is another terrible outgrowth of this imperialist delusion. That is why, as a community, as a European Union, we must continue to support Ukrainians and ensure that these environmental crimes are clarified.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, it is good that you are here today, ladies and gentlemen! Climate change is real. It happens every day, and it gets worse every day. Recent research shows that the surface water in the Atlantic has reached record temperatures. This means more energy transfer, more storms, more storms, more floods, more deaths. We don't see many deaths from the climate crisis. We don't see how many people die of bad air in New York because that's where the dust of the wildfires from Canada arrives. That is why it is so important that we give these invisible victims a face and have a day in the European Union for the victims of the global climate crisis and commemorate these victims. One can deny the climate crisis, as the right side of the house does, but it is a mistake that today no one is there to commemorate the victims on this day. And the fact that the EPP has withdrawn its spokespersons today shows that the EPP is not interested in resolving the climate crisis, and this is honestly a scandal to the victims, and it shows that together the rest of the House must do all the more to a) commemorate the victims and b) - and this is much, much more important - prevent them. For this we need an ambitious climate policy of the European Union. The target for 2040, which the Commission will also address, on which the Council, the Scientific Advisory Board, will have to make its proposal at the end of this week in the Environment Committee, must be there to prevent even more victims. And yes, you can put your head in the sand, as the right side of the house does, but that won't save a life. That is why this day, that is why climate policy is so important, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you to all who are here today to address this issue.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Stella, it is good that we see ourselves here today on a very, very important subject: Antimicrobial resistance. It is one of the most underestimated health issues. Since 2017, there has been an action plan of the European Commission, and relatively little has happened. That is why it is good and necessary that we now talk about the subject again. First of all, I would like to thank the Commission for issuing its recommendations to the Member States. I hope that the Member States will then also adopt these recommendations. We, as the European Parliament, are very united behind the proposal and I would like to thank all the colleagues who, together with us, have tabled this question for oral answer. It's not just us, it's the EPP, it's Renew, it's the Greens, it's the Left, so it's really a very, very broad, closed majority. I think we mention important points: Strengthening the One Health approach, which ensures that we think of health as a whole – from the environment to human health, but also animal health – is key. We need to further reduce the use of antibiotics, both in human prescribing and in animal health – where possible, so that we keep these life-saving medicines and they do not lose their protective effect even further. It is also important that we monitor environmental measures much more closely. We also underline once again in our resolution that we must pay particular attention to examining water in order to test whether there is a new antimicrobial resistance. We want people to use more rapid diagnostic tests before antibiotics are prescribed. And we especially want to train the health staff again, where there is still room for improvement. But we must also not close our eyes to the fact that we are running into a dead end with the previous antibiotics. That is why we must also focus on alternative treatment methods and, above all, ensure that antibiotic research happens again in the European Union. In this respect, Commissioner, thank you very much for taking the time to discuss with us today. I think it will be a very exciting and very important debate.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is good that you are here; Dear colleagues! What right do we have in the European Union to consume products made in parts of the world that violate human rights, destroy the environment or actually exploit people? What right do we have to do this? We have no right to do so, and that is why we need a clear, strong supply chain law that ensures that human rights not only apply in the European Union and cease at the external borders, but that they apply worldwide. With this European supply chain law, which we will vote on tomorrow, we have the chance to ensure that we do not measure with double standards, but that we ensure that human rights and environmental protection apply equally all over the world. That is our duty. And I very much hope that tomorrow the EPP will agree to this law and will not part with a compromise that ensures that human rights and environmental standards are respected worldwide. This compromise is a good one: It ensures fair compensation for businesses, workers, the environment and consumers. And that's why we need to put this clear signal here together tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Many of my previous speakers have already stressed this here today: Without farmers in Europe, we will not succeed in the transformation, because the transformation, climate change and also the threat to biodiversity affect farmers first. In many regions of the European Union, however, agriculture will soon no longer be possible if we do not finally move towards climate protection. If you don't want to be aware of this, you can take a look at the Po Valley at the rice farmers or at the wheat farmers in Spain. Because of the drought there threatens another total failure. Closing our eyes to the problem will not help us. We need to work together, not against each other, including in this House. If I follow the debate here today, it is more of an election campaign than a real discussion of the problem. My group in all committees, even though we are working very hard on the content, stands ready to find a compromise that will help farmers, but also ensure that we can do the same. Nature restoration law Reduce the use of pesticides in the European Union. I ask the EPP whether they are willing to go down this path together or to continue this campaign theatre.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is good that you are here, ladies and gentlemen. We all know that after CO2 methane, the second largest polluter of climate change, over a period of more than 20 years, is even 80 times more climate-damaging than CO2. If we just consider that around 140 billion cubic meters of methane per year escape from the world's oil production alone, which we could catch on the one hand, we could help the climate. But we could also use them economically. That is why the report to be voted on tomorrow is of central importance. For the first time, we are effectively tackling leakages of methane. By combating leaks and pointless flaring, we are actually protecting the climate on the one hand, but we could also use this as a contribution to the methane collected and thus increase security of supply. What does not escape can be used, and this is especially true for imports. I am very surprised that the colleagues from the EPP want to support amendments that want to make imported products better than products from the European Union. Normally, they are always concerned with the security of competition for the European economy. They don't seem to care here. That is why my plea is clear here to agree with the compromises of the political groups and not to agree tomorrow with the amendments that would undermine the truly progressive report of the rapporteurs. We owe this to the climate, but also to Europeans.

Mr President, Commissioner! I'm glad you're with us today. As you rightly said, a few weeks ago the IPCC report made it very clear that the damage and irretrievable losses caused by climate change have increased significantly. And these effects continue to pick up speed. From 2006 to 2018, sea levels rose on average almost three times as fast as they did in the first half of the 20th century. And that's why the consequences of climate change are no longer a problem for any future generation, but a problem in the here and now. In the European Parliament, we have made historic climate decisions this week. They are urgently needed because the IPCC has once again made it clear that more than three billion people are already living in regions of the world that are particularly vulnerable to the negative climate effects. But it is also clear – and the message from the scientists is clear – that: Our current efforts are not enough. Instead of meeting the 1.5-degree target, we are aiming for 3 degrees of global warming with the current targets worldwide. This is catastrophic! For Europe, such a scenario would mean, for example, harvests in the south by more than 30% - 30%! – could break in. At the same time, each degree increases the risk of tearing down irreversible climate tipping points, at which we then no longer know what will happen next. In addition, the scientists agree: In order to keep the consequences of climate change as bearable as possible, substantial lasting savings are needed as soon as possible and in any case still in this decade. And here we are in demand, also this week. We cannot and will not stop here with climate policy, but we must continue. And this goes in particular to the European Commission, I made it clear in the debate on Monday: For 2040, we need science-based goals. And I once again call on the Commission to listen to the Scientific Advisory Board, which we have enforced here by a majority in the European Parliament. Because this is important to keep Europe worth living. Listen to the science!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. As MEPs, we have started to make the European Union greener and to stop the climate crisis. To this end, we have decided on the climate emergency and we have adopted a European Climate Law that commits us to be climate neutral by 2050 at the latest. These goals are good, they are right, but they need to be implemented. With the votes this week, we are getting much closer to these goals in many places. We are reducing 62 percent of emissions in the emissions trading sector. That's a lot, that's ambitious, and at the same time we make sure that we don't overburden our industry. We ensure that the industry remains competitive. With the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, we are creating something that is new worldwide. I believe that we can also be a bit satisfied with it and thus also be proud of it. At the same time, however, we are also introducing an emissions trading system for the transport and building sectors. Why do we have to do this? Because far too little CO2 has been saved so far in these areas, our legislation, which, for example, decides on the combustion engine, comes far too late and actually tries to torpedo even on the last few meters under the guise of greenhouse gas neutrality. So we can't have both at the same time. The emissions trading system 2 for buildings and transport is absolutely anti-social in concept, as it places the greatest burden on those who cannot choose which heating system is in their basement – this is what the landlord does. It puts a strain on those who cannot take the bus to work because there is no public transport, but have to use the car. That's why the concept is basically not a good one. It was therefore of particular concern to us as Social Democrats to ensure that the ETS 2 remains socially just. That's why we get the Social Climate Fund. This is the success of the European Parliament. And it will make it impossible for some in the government to campaign against the European Union in the next European elections because we stand with the weakest. It was a damn hard fight. I see many young people here in the European Parliament today, and therefore also the promise from this side that we will not stop the Commission, which is here today, from setting ambitious targets for the 2040 goal – and we must also think about the future. I urge the Commission to listen here and now to the Scientific Advisory Board, which we have adopted here by a large majority in the European Parliament. The climate crisis is not waiting for us to make decisions. It's going to move forward, and that's why we all have to keep going. I believe that we are taking an important step with the historic decisions today or this week, but we are not yet at the end.

Madam President, Commissioner Timmermans! Today, we are deciding whether to abolish the internal combustion engine in the European Union for new registrations from 2035 onwards. And that is right that we are making this decision – on the one hand for climate policy reasons, because road transport still emits far too much greenhouse gas, but on the other hand also for industrial policy reasons. Other parts of the world, the US, for example, are currently investing heavily in green technologies. If we as Europeans do not want to lose touch, we now need planning security for the manufacturers. Manufacturers want to follow this path. You need a legal framework. We'll make it. If the EPP is saying here that it is about the workers, then I wonder: Why do you deny your colleagues planning security? Why did you vote for less money in the transformation funds in the negotiations? And why do you pretend to be interested in the workers? It's all about the synthetic fuel lobby. But synthetic fuels are not a solution: We do not have them, they are far too expensive, and we need them in other sectors and not in road transport, where we can electrify directly. And honestly, first of all, it is said that we do not have a charging infrastructure – then we make a regulation for the deployment of the charging infrastructure. Then it is said that we do not have raw materials – then we do the recycling for the batteries. You constantly invent new arguments, you close your eyes to reality. If we had made such a policy in recent years, there would be no more industry in the European Union. And one last point: The way to the future is not to look back. The way to the future is to look at what is possible. For the European automotive industry, this is electromobility and also the use of hydrogen. And, you forget, we do not rule that out. And synthetic fuels are also based on hydrogen, they are only much more inefficient. They are simply not a solution. And with that I come to the end and hope that reason wins and that we will agree with the trilogue result today.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, As a Social Democrat in the European Parliament, I stand here today to talk about regulating political advertising. We must be aware that regulation of political advertising should not regulate every political statement. Free political expression is an important part of our democracy. It gives citizens a voice and allows them to inform and discuss political matters. We must not equate this free political expression with paid advertising. Overregulation of political advertising can endanger free political discourse online. We must ensure that political expressions and discussions can continue to take place freely and unhindered without being hampered by regulation. Nevertheless, we must also face the reality that there are practices that can jeopardise the integrity of political advertising, such as misleading information or conflicts of interest. Here we need to regulate, but in a way that ensures that free political expression is not compromised.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear representatives of the Council! The coronavirus pandemic has been affecting us for three years. As the European Union, we were able to avert the worst after initial difficulties, and due to the measures taken to combat the coronavirus pandemic, other seasonal diseases, such as the RS virus, which is very dangerous especially for infants, and other viruses, including influenza viruses, have also decreased. It is therefore not surprising that with the easing of the coronavirus measures, infectious diseases are now breaking out again and finding their way into society, especially in the winter months. But what we have seen in recent weeks and months, alongside other coronavirus infections, alongside the flu wave – especially the dramatic increase in RS infections – is indeed worrying. We are reaching the limit of preventive and therapeutic treatment options, both in children's clinics and in adults. Employees and doctors are and work above their stress limit. And there are, as has just been mentioned, dramatic drug shortages. That is why I can only repeat the demands that we have made here in this House, also on the proposal of my group: The European production of key products in the pharmaceutical industry needs to be strengthened, it needs to take place here. We need a resilient healthcare industry. We need care for the hospitals, for the medical practices, here from Europe – not least in view of the fact that China, as my colleague before me has already mentioned, in particular withholds medicines and no longer exports them. That's why we have to stop saying that we need measures to get production back here and do it here. We must finally act, and that is why the European Commission's proposal on the pharmaceutical strategy is finally needed. This would give us the key to being close to Europe, as we did during the coronavirus pandemic. We are united in diversity, and together we are stronger and stronger. Dear Commissioner, we are looking forward to your proposal.

Dear Mr President, dear Commissioner! 32.7 million tonnes of waste, including 1.1 million tonnes of plastic waste: In 2021 alone, the European Union exported this unimaginable amount of waste to the rest of the world, often to countries such as Turkey or Malaysia. True to the motto: Out of sight, out of mind. Unfortunately, this rubbish does not disappear simply because it is no longer with us. If things go well, the garbage will at least be recycled. If things go badly, as so often, then gigantic landfills are created, which devastate areas and also poison and damage animal and plant life sustainably. And that must end. And this clear message is sent out by the report. It is particularly important that we want to ban the export of hazardous, toxic plastic waste. The fact that the export of plastic waste should be completely banned within four years is a real success. And I hope we can convince the Council, and I would have liked to have discussed this with the Council today. But the truth also includes: In addition to plastic, the export of non-recyclable waste remains possible in many cases. Unfortunately, a majority here in the House lacks the courage to say: We Europeans take full responsibility for the waste we produce here. And that's why we're missing a chance. But despite this downside, this report is a huge step in the right direction and therefore deserves our full support.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear Frans! The European Parliament, together with the Member States, is taking the development of renewable energy seriously. If we achieve 45% renewables by 2030, we can save 200 billion euros, which we do not have to invest in fossil fuels. We can become independent of Putin's gas. And this goal can be achieved with a combined effort. I am glad that here in the House, but also in the Council, we have discussed and broadly agreed on this simplification of procedures, which we need in order to have more renewables and to expand them more quickly. We have an agreement that provides for a proportionate expansion and at the same time respects nature conservation law. To jeopardise this balanced approach now, as is being done by the EPP, is really a big problem. No more environmental assessment of biomass power plants: This is dangerous, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't help anyone. Building Natura 2000 sites doesn't help either. It would help a lot more in states, such as Bavaria, to eliminate unnecessary space for renewables. Therefore, let us stick to the compromise and vote on it today.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The facts are crystal clear: The global goals are not enough, they are far from enough to stop the climate crisis. The EU target of at least 55% reduction by 2030 is also not a fair contribution, as the Paris Agreement would require us to do. This is why, from the outset, we as Parliament have called for the debate on climate law to be held: at least 60% reduction by 2030. Now is not the time to discuss who was right in the end. It's time to think about it, to act, and to do so now. An increase in climate targets through the Fit for 55 package is possible. More renewable energy, tighter emissions trading, more covered emissions, stronger sinks - all these are important goals that we as the European Union now need to advance. Dear Representative of the European Commission, we must work together to ensure that we do not go to the conference empty-handed. I would now also ask the Council to say something. But the Council shows how important this debate is to it. I honestly find it shameful. It is time for us to raise our goals together, ladies and gentlemen.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, This resolution, on which we are voting, is of central importance. All life comes from the water, and yet we still protect our seas far too little. We have too few protected areas. Biological diversity, the diversity of the seas, it is not properly protected. It hasn't even been properly researched. That is why, especially as a European Union, we must play an even stronger role here and finally designate protected areas and protect the marine habitat. The same goes for the economy on the water. We have strong shipping. This is also necessary for people to come together so that goods can be distributed. But ships have decades of service life. That is why we need to start decarbonising fuels now – and we can do so here next week in plenary in Strasbourg. We have to make sure that the ships are no longer dirt-slingers, but that they are on the road sustainably and cleanly. In doing so, we protect our environment, and in doing so, we actually protect the climate. So: Full support for this resolution with a clear focus on more environmental and climate protection and, above all, more and better protected areas.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We are in an energy crisis. But we can't get out of this energy crisis with nuclear power. We cannot get out of this energy crisis with an infinite amount of LNG. We are freeing ourselves from this energy crisis with renewable energies. This is the future. But renewable is not immediately renewable. A very big problem is the burning of our forests, and this under the label of renewable energies. We use it to destroy biotopes, we use it to destroy the green lungs, we use it to destroy CO2 stores. I would therefore have been pleased if the ENVI request on this subject had actually been accepted. Unfortunately, there was no majority for this. Why is it so important to avoid wood? If we want to cover only 2% of the world's energy from wood, we would have to double the logging. That would actually make the forests disappear in no time at all. We have now found a compromise that I can support. It covers the crediting of woody biomass, we stop with the promotion. This is a first – no longer – but very important step.

Mr President! The drought we are experiencing in Europe is the worst in 500 years. It has a serious impact on life, on the economy, on people, on nature. We must therefore speed up our efforts to combat the climate crisis that caused this drought – indeed, it is man-made – seriously. Our commitment to emit at least 55% less greenhouse gases by 2030 is not an empty promise, it guarantees life in this European Union. We owe it to the citizens. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the firefighters all over Europe who defend the lives of the people who save our nature. You really do great things. But what is also important to underline: We must not accelerate the drought by emitting more and more CO2. The forests burned by this crisis, by this drought, are lost forever. This is a catastrophe. However, we must not, with European legislation, also ensure that we burn even more wood in order to obtain energy from it. That has to change. Ladies and gentlemen, we must speed up our fight against drought. We'll do that.

Madam President, I am glad that so many colleagues are interested in our report on better law—making and following this debate. Thank you very much for that. I know that we need to be quick so that everyone can catch the train back home I want to thank Mr Šefčovič for the presentation and for his promises to work hard together with the European Parliament to enhance the legislation process. It’s very necessary. I would like to thank all the colleagues who contributed in the debate, underlining that transparency is of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, we don’t have transparency when it comes to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, which is still an internal Commission body, but we will work on that – because it is necessary that all decisions related to law—making are transparent and can be scrutinised by the MEPs in this House. Delays by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in the legislative process are highly undemocratic. We saw it on the due diligence legislation: it was postponed twice, and now we are under extreme time pressure to deliver in this crucial area, and this is really not acceptable. I would also like to thank everybody who supported that we do want to have faster proceedings and that we want to have proceedings which also take into account social and economic aspects in the law—making process. And so I would hope that everyone can support this report.

Mr President, better lawmaking should be a common goal for all EU lawmakers. It is the core of our work. We owe it to the European citizens to make sure that European legislation is ambitious, fit for the purpose, proportionate, clear, transparent and comprehensive. This can, however, only be achieved by increasing transparency, accountability, cooperation between the institutions – unfortunately, the Council is not present – the Member States, citizens and stakeholders. Better regulation helps us to ensure that EU policies and legislation are geared towards the future and serve society. Indeed, there were several very good aspects integrated in the Commission’s Better Regulation Communication. Thank you very much for that. But sometimes with good also comes bad, and here I would like to focus on two specific things that I personally still am very sceptical about. While conducting our work, we need to be able to gain the trust of EU citizens and take them with us along the legislative process. In order to gain trust there needs to be transparency. When looking at the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, especially said transparency is simply missing. We have a board that is composed of seven members, none of them elected, meaning that they are not accountable to citizens or us as policymakers. Additionally, four out of seven Board members are Commission employees, decreasing credibility and weakening its independence. I am very concerned to see that one of the objects set out by the Commission is to strengthen the board. For example, I believe that transparency in regard to Scrutiny Board meetings with stakeholders, reviews, recommendations and opinions should be significantly improved. Moreover, the work of the Board should not ultimately affect the Commission’s capacity to propose legislation or unduly delay the adoption of legislative proposals. In 2021 alone, one third of the impact assessments received a negative first opinion by the Board, leading to delays. And speaking about delays, the Board gave two negative opinions on the due diligence proposal, and now we have to work here in Parliament under extreme time pressure. The Board can only provide an effective check on the Commission’s work if it is independent and impartial, so this needs to be established. Therefore, we are calling for the independence of the Board and for transparency of the Board’s meetings through making use of the transparency register mandatory, and also by publishing reviews, recommendations and opinions without any delay. And this is what I need to underline here – without any delay. Secondly, the one-in-one-out approach which the Commission disappointingly introduced unilaterally without a prior impact assessment or consultation. I am personally very sceptical about this approach. I believe that the energy that will be required by Commission staff to tick the box could indeed be usefully used somewhere else. I believe that this approach must, under no circumstances, run counter to the objective of better regulation. Moreover, this approach should not lead to mechanical decisions of repeating legislation just for the sake of it. This is why we are calling for this approach to be based on a transparent and evidence-based methodology, giving proportionate consideration to all sustainability aspects, both in terms of benefits and costs, including the costs of non-compliance and inaction, and taking into account the administrative, social, environmental and public health impacts. Coming back to transparency, we call on you, Commissioner, to take the one-in-one-out calculator, to make it public as soon as possible and to obtain the support of all institutions before applying this approach. And one last note: I would like to thank all my colleagues and their teams who have contributed to the discussion on this report. I am looking forward to the discussion and colleagues, Commissioner, let us build trust together with all the institutions.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen! When I wrote my own-initiative report, it was very important to me to ensure that there was no more personalised advertising on internet platforms in the European Union. A large majority here in the House have followed this request and have asked the Commission to put an end to spying advertising. Unfortunately, this did not happen. It will also be possible for platforms to collect data and use this data. We see where this leads, especially in the USA, where women who might want to have an abortion have to delete their data in order not to be prosecuted. This is a scandal, and at this point, I must say, we did not go far enough. However, we have also done well in many places – I am the rapporteur for the opinion. for the DMA – very, very good that we are finally moving in the right direction on interoperability! Have we created a new Digital Basic Law for the European Union with this law? I think so. Is this basic law perfect? I don't think so. Will we stop at that? No, no! It is our task to make the European Union a digital fortress of fundamental rights for citizens, and we will continue to do so.