Speeches

The protection of children is particularly important to us as the EPP, and that is why we have proposed an amendment precisely to this effect, namely that we do not want to introduce children and young people to the e-cigarette. We have to be strict. But the fact that someone would have used an e-cigarette at another table in an outdoor restaurant would not have bothered me in the slightest when my children – they are now adults – were small, because I also cannot imagine a theoretical scenario where in an outdoor restaurant someone who is distant from the children and who does not blow directly in the face causes any health damage. That's why I can represent this in good conscience.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! I don't smoke, and I don't advise anyone to start smoking. Anyone who smokes can do nothing better for their health than quit. We should support people in this. Nevertheless, I cannot support this resolution in this way, nor do I support the Commission's proposal for Council recommendations, which is the reason for the whole discussion. It can be said that these are only recommendations, nothing is forbidden. But the debate makes sense, and the Commission wants the bans. I do not wish them to the extent proposed by the Commission. The use of an e-cigarette can actually help heavy smokers get away from tobacco, and they then do not reduce their health risk to zero, but drastically reduce it. To say to these people: You are also not allowed to use your e-cigarette in outdoor restaurants, which is rightly met with resistance, and it is not proportionate, and Mr Andriukaitis has also not talked about vaping and e-cigarettes. There is no scientific evidence that passively harms e-cigarette smoking outdoors, and as long as that doesn't exist, we can't discuss bans either.

Thank you very much, Mr Andriukaitis. You have worked a lot and successfully against tobacco addiction as Health Minister and also as Commissioner, and I congratulate you that you have done this. But when we speak about scientific evidence, we have to be clear. I, also as a doctor, don't know any scientific evidence that when somebody uses an e-cigarette in an outside restaurant any third person has any risk here. So that needs to be clarified. Where is the scientific evidence? Which article? Send it to me, and we talk.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would also like to express my sympathy to the victims of the disaster in Valencia – and the President-in-Office is from Valencia. It is important that we help very quickly very concretely. And, of course, not every weather extreme can be directly attributed to climate change. But it cannot be denied that such events are accumulating and that the whole thing also has to do with the temperature in the Mediterranean Sea. This is also a commitment to climate protection. The election of Donald Trump is bad news for the climate. And that's why we have to react wisely now. We must seek allies to not only keep the climate protection process going, but even accelerate it. And we should be a good example. But that's not what I mean now, in the sense that it's often meant, just raise the targets again, but we really should be a good example – showing the rest of the world that it works. Not to de-industrialize Europe, but to decarbonize our industry. To do this, we need faster approval procedures and less bureaucracy. Germany wants to be climate neutral by 2045. Deutsche Bahn alone needs 20 years to approve a new route. It can't go on like this. And some confuse bureaucracy with climate protection. Often it is the opposite: We need less bureaucracy for more climate protection.

Madam President, in fact, when this resolution was discussed on Monday night, we had some challenges, but we base our work on Rule 136 of the Rules of Procedure, and what happened is a common practice in this Parliament. There was a majority... (Mixed reactions) I listened to you, you may listen to me. (Applause) So there's nothing in the rule that we violated. It was a request of a majority of those that were ready to sign this resolution. And we may discuss this further, but more important, dear colleagues, is the content. Please vote for this resolution. There are patients waiting for us. There are companies going bankrupt if we don't act. Let's support this resolution.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The Medical Devices Regulation and the IVD Regulation were not only well-intentioned, they were also necessary. We have had many scandals, for example about the defective breast implants, and therefore it is good that we now have unannounced checks in the companies and better monitoring of the notified bodies. But we have to say today: The EU institutions have far exceeded the target. We have a bureaucratic behemoth with many rules that do not increase security, but cost and effort. This costs jobs and economic strength at a time when the European economy is already in crisis. Worse still, it puts lives at risk. Medical colleagues of mine from pediatric cardiology, for example, already say today that certain necessary instruments are not available. It is therefore good that in the mission letter The Commissioner-designate for Health says that he should tackle the problem. But honestly: I find this wording too lax. Please report this further: There is a lot of evaluation. The Commission has committed itself to present something in other important areas within 100 days of taking office. Here I hear that a proposal may come in 2026. It's too late. My clear request to the Commission, including to Ursula von der Leyen personally: It has to go faster. We need a concrete proposal within 100 days of the new Commission taking office. I have also tried a specialist lawyer before. There is a well-formulated proposal, which you can of course change, but something has to happen quickly. To work, dear Commission, against bureaucracy, for jobs, for health, especially the health of our children.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The automotive industry is one of the most important pillars of the European economy, and the medium-sized supplier industry in particular must be close to our hearts. Therefore, the current development cannot let us rest. The question is: What is it about? At least in Germany there is a survey. People say that, in addition to mistakes in the industry itself, it is the decisions of the Member States that are responsible, an absolutely chaotic support policy and very high electricity prices. This, of course, prevents you from buying electric cars. This means, in my view, that we should not abandon the climate targets, in particular the 2030 target and the 2050 target. They are also part of the EPP's electoral programme. We have a responsibility for the future, for our children and grandchildren. Many companies that have adjusted to climate protection should not let us down right now. But we need to change the method. We need technological neutrality, we need to abolish the ban on the combustion engine. It is possible to operate the combustion engine in a climate-neutral manner. This is possible with climate-neutral fuels such as e-fuels. That we only measure on the exhaust how much CO2 Come out and don't even care what happened before, that can't be right. That is why we need a revision, and we need it as soon as possible.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In fact, within the European Union we have every reason to remain calm. What we are currently experiencing with Mpox cannot be compared and cannot be compared with the COVID pandemic. For people in the European Union, the risk of dying from this disease is extremely low. Nevertheless, we must take it seriously and, above all, we must take it seriously with regard to Africa. This is a huge health problem. If we help there, as the Commission rightly does, then we help ourselves, because if the disease is under control in Africa, we can really reduce the risk for Europe to near zero. It is a commandment of humanity. But I think it is even more important that we help for geopolitical reasons, because if we need raw materials, if we need solidarity with Ukraine and the like, then it is important that these countries also remember that we helped them in need. But in fact, the delivery of vaccines and drugs is only a small part. I have worked in a developing country myself and know that infrastructure is the biggest problem there. What fascinated me a lot: Someone from the EMA explained to me that in fact, in a clinical trial for the antiviral drug, the mere fact that you were in a clinic and well treated halved the death rate; The drug was added to its effect. So that means we need more support, not just vaccines and medicines. But it remains true, we have cases in Europe, we have a case in Sweden and a European who was then diagnosed in Asia. Sweden has responded and issued travel recommendations. Why don't we do this together? Member States should cooperate. What needs to be done must be done by Europe and not by each Member State.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The EPP stands by . We have not only supported most of the relevant laws, but we have also led many of them. Let me give you an example of the Social Climate Fund and the Emissions Trading System. And everyone should also remember that the Emissions Trading System II was initially completely rejected by the right, the left, the Social Democrats and the Greens. Please don't forget! We have rejected some laws for good reason, and I am glad that we have also done so successfully in the field of crop protection. Thanks to Ursula von der Leyen for withdrawing this. The Greens' record is that they are less Green Deal-Laws supported in the final vote as the EPP. I call the Climate Protection Act, Euro 7, Plant Protection, New Breeding Methods, Gas and the all-black day, 8 June 2022, when you, along with the rights, sunk my report on the Emissions Trading System. We were able to fix it, but please think back. So we're already at a number of seven unsupported laws, and I hear there's an eighth coming tomorrow, Net Zero Industry Act. And I really think that's a problem. Together, we have given the industry ambitious goals after many difficulties. But now we must also enable them to actually build climate-neutral factories by accelerating procedures and reducing bureaucracy. And this is in the Act. So greens, before you get excited: Tonight in the group decide for Net Zero Industry Act! Then we will move forward together on climate protection.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, If we accept these two texts right away, then we are taking a very important step towards helping patients whom we have not been able to help so far. Therefore, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this result, especially the staff. At one point, I think the committee made a mistake: I believe that we should abide by the law in force in the European Parliament, and it is established by the European Court of Justice and by a protocol to the Treaty that the issue of abortion is a national competence and that it cannot be regulated at European level. I therefore recommend voting against Amendment No 85. But otherwise, we really have a good text. It is particularly important for me to combat antibiotic resistance. We need to be more careful with antibiotics, but we also need innovation, and I am grateful that, after initial resistance, a broad majority in the end also voted for the voucher system. When I talk about innovation, I am very grateful that we have also included innovation in the legislation. So far, everyone, no matter what drug they make, has had eight years of market exclusivity, eight years of protection. Now let's reduce that to seven and a half years. And I don't think we need the 27th. Blood pressure lowerer or the 38th. Blood lipid reducers – we need real innovation. And the companies that address things that haven't been addressed so far, the patients that we can't help so far, they get more document protection. By innovating more, we help these patients – and that is the most important point.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. There is a major problem with the supply of medical devices. This care problem leads to a real health risk, especially in children who suffer from relatively rare diseases such as heart disease. That is why it is very important that we act together as soon as possible. The medical device regulation was not only well-intentioned, it was also necessary. There was the PIP scandal, in which thousands of women were harmed by damaged breast implants. There were designated bodies that did not work properly. A journalist has managed to certify an orange net from the supermarket as a medical device for abdominal surgery. That's why something had to happen. There are now unannounced controls. There is now stronger monitoring of notified bodies and that is good. But it is not good that the EU institutions have gone beyond the target. In addition to meaningful improvements, there are a number of unnecessary and expensive bureaucratic burdens. And that's where we gotta go. That is why the postponement that the Commission has now presented is only a first step. We can't keep moving forward, we have to get to the root of the problem. I presented a ten-point plan to the Commission together with my colleague Angelika Niebler, and I will mention only two points that are particularly important to me: We need regulation for niche products such as cardiac catheters for children. There is such a thing in the United States. We need that in Europe, too, and fast. We should abolish this unnecessary rule that every medical device, even if there is no discernible risk, must be re-certified every five years. All this, Commissioner, must happen as soon as possible. Companies need planning security, and doctors need medical devices to save lives.

Mr Bloss, you say that the European Commission's objective is not ambitious enough. I just have one question. At the weekend, the Greens decided at European level that they want 100% by 2040. Do the reports say that the German Greens disagreed? Who are the German Greens? And why aren't the German Greens fighting in the German federal government for this 2040 goal? So before you insult others, you should first know where you stand, at home and at European level.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, congratulations to the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and Wopke Hoekstra, in particular for saying that the Commission is launching a dialogue. So today it is not a decision where the Commission says we know everything and we push it through now, but there is a dialogue about this goal – but perhaps even more importantly, about the conditions for us to achieve ambitious climate targets at all. I am particularly grateful that you mentioned this international dimension, Commissioner. We, in fact, see great interest in our emissions trading and CBAM. The rapporteur Mohammed Chahim also knows this: Many third countries want to work with us. The Directorate-General for Climate is flooded with requests from third countries. But we ourselves witnessed in Dubai at the COP that the third countries say: We don't actually have a real point of contact with the Commission, there is no one who is going forward with us now. That will change with this task force. That's why I would like to thank you very much for this. This could be the most effective, cost-effective and effective climate action ever – that we work with those who want to work with us and thus form a strong group, including internationally. Secondly: We need to enable industry, agriculture and people to actually achieve ambitious goals. For this we need the Net-Zero Industry Act. He is currently being negotiated in another room. And for this we need a positive approach to agriculture: Do not denounce agriculture, do not put it in the corner, but see it as a partner. Agriculture and forestry are the only sectors that are already extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. And we have to continue along the way. Last but not least, the people. Many people, especially those on low incomes, who work hard every day but do not have much savings, and for whom investment is difficult to manage, need more support – not only from the Social Climate Fund, but also from national funds. This is in the legislation, and the Commission must now tap the fingers of the Member States to ensure that this is finally implemented.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The new breeding methods are a huge opportunity for our farmers. In our view, this is also the better way to increase yields and avoid plant protection products than prohibitions in the field of plant protection products. That is why we are very grateful that Ursula von der Leyen announced this morning that she would withdraw the SUR proposal. And I am also firmly convinced of the new breeding methods – as a doctor and someone who has also dealt with genetics in his doctoral thesis: There are no irresponsible risks. In contrast to conventional genetic engineering, no foreign genes are introduced into these plants. In many parts of the world, this technique is already being used, and any horror scenarios are not relevant simply because they did not show up there. The rapporteur Jessica Polfjärd – thank you very much! – has addressed certain concerns; for example, contrary to its original draft report, the labelling of seeds is now included in the proposal of the Committee on the Environment. The Committee on the Environment adopted this text by a clear majority of 47 to 31, which is why we should also adopt it tomorrow in plenary. Let's give our farmers this opportunity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, on behalf of Jessica Polfjärd, a thank you for the great support in her report on ozone-depleting substances. Thank God there was no controversy. We fought very hard on F-gases and I think we achieved a good result. It's less ambitious than the Environment Committee wanted, but it's still a big step forward for the climate. There is still criticism. I believe that outside of the criticism, which is purely populist, purely anti-European, we must look closely at one issue, Commissioner, and that is also a request to the Member States: Of course, at some point no new F-gases will come onto the market, and there may be one or the other refrigeration unit that still stands in a bakery, a butcher's shop, in a brewery and that still has to be repaired. In my view, it is particularly important that we now massively promote the recycling of F-gases – Commission, Member States – by providing training, by providing programmes. What happens to these F-gases if they are not recycled? If old refrigeration units are disposed of and you don't get the gas out? Then it goes into the atmosphere. So it is very, very important for both the economy and the climate that we promote recycling on a large scale. Then we have revision clauses. I hope we don't have to use them. If there is no other way, we have to use them. But it would be best if we found out at the beginning of the revision: We have so much recycled F-gas that's going on now. The Commission and the Member States have done a good job, so we really don't have to put new gases on the market anymore.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, Commissioner! Environmental and climate protection through modern technology and in cooperation with those affected – that is how I would overwrite the work we have done on the two reports before us. Today I represent the rapporteur, Jessica Polfjärd, and I would like to congratulate her on a report that has gone through the Committee on the Environment, the plenary and the trilogue without much controversy. Thanks to all those involved who helped. The Polfjärd report deals with ozone-destroying substances. We had a big problem with the ozone hole in the 80s. As a doctor, I know that skin cancer has increased very, very much due to the ozone hole. We now have the problem under very good control through an international agreement and the replacement of these substances that cause the ozone hole. There are still a few areas where these substances are still allowed: In medicine, for example. Here, the agreement provides for greater control and we want safe recovery and recovery of these substances. In the case of building materials, including the demolition of buildings, greater care must be taken to ensure that the substances do not enter the atmosphere. Leaks also need to be better controlled. I think that in both reports – and I will now say something about the F-gas report again – we have managed to support modern technology that can help us tackle environmental problems. F-gases are up to 25,000 times more harmful to the climate than CO2, which is why we have a construction site here. The F-gases regulation allows us to save as much CO2 – 40 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent – as Ireland, Portugal and Sweden emit annually or even a number of very, very many cars. This is already a very, very important step for climate protection. Many EU companies have the alternative natural refrigerants we need to further illustrate the function. And that's why this is also a good solution for large parts of the industry. We had a construction site: Following the decision of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, the craft sector has rightly complained. I say it very clearly here: We must take the interests of the craft into consideration. Without craftsmanship, there is no energy transition. The problem was that we had a far too short transition period in the Environment Committee when it came to repairing equipment and spare parts, for example, or when it came to the question of when an existing device no longer works and F-gases have to be brought in to make it work again. A ban should be in place in 2024 – we are already in 2024. That is why I am very grateful that the plenary adopted the amendments - one tabled by the EPP together with the Renew and one tabled only by the EPP - on this subject, so that the craft sector has planning certainty and that existing installations do not become worthless. I believe that in the end this is a good result – climate and environmental protection with craftsmanship and industry.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We need to fight the plastic flood, we need to fight the waste flood, and that is why we need a regulation, also to create a single market for the circular economy, and the Member States that have so far had little recycling need to do much more. But the European Commission has, in my view, gone well beyond the target. This proposal still breathes the spirit of Vice President Timmermans, even though he is no longer there. Let me give you two examples. Firstly: in online trading. Yes, we have a lot of superfluous packaging, a lot of plastic packaging. But the proposal treats paper the same as plastic. I know companies that are moving from plastic to paper right now. Shouldn't we support them? The second point – much more annoying to me: The Commission proposal prohibits small bags of paper for sugar, salt, pepper and sweetener. I had a coffee this morning and found these bags here in Strasbourg in the European Parliament. We cannot seriously forbid the general public something that we ourselves use. And we can't seriously deal with paper bags at the moment when we have so many problems. I am confident that we will vote out this nonsense tomorrow, then it will be a good text. Let us accept the relevant amendments.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The decarbonisation of buses and trucks is important, no doubt about it. But the majority in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has in some places reinforced the Commission's ambitious proposal, e.g. on the 2035 target. So also the S&D does not follow Timmermans when we already talk about such things here, but goes beyond that again. But I would like to draw particular attention – just like Jens Gieseke – to the requests for technological neutrality. Personally, I would like to ask you above all for your support for Amendment 123, but also for the other EPP requests in this area. The accounting of e-fuels is important. Yes, they are expensive at the moment and they are scarce at the moment – but who knows what it will be like in 2035 and 2040. And yes, manufacturers don't want that right now. But why should we exclude this for the next few years? Let the market decide. The market should decide it, the engineers should decide it, not the policy. We are for technology neutrality.

I have the question: Firstly, we always want to stick to the facts: The proposal officially deals with plant protection products. Do you agree that we agree on the terminology: Plant protection products and not pesticides? And secondly: Do you not also believe that the new breeding methods are an opportunity to save on plant protection products? And will you then also work with us for these new breeding methods?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, As a doctor and environmental politician, I am in favour of a careful handling of plant protection products and, of course, a reduction strategy. But I am against this proposal because it provides for a total ban on chemical and synthetic plant protection products in many areas and because I consider the definition of sensitive areas here to be completely unsuitable. I have a huge FFH and bird sanctuary in my constituency – yes, the Greens laugh; The local conservationists are on my side, dear Martin Häusling, and I had actually thought that we had the opportunity to explain this to you. This is where conservationists say: Please do not endanger the contract nature conservation, do not endanger the good cooperation that we as conservationists have with the farmers. I therefore ask Mrs Aguilera in particular to present and represent the position of the Committee on Agriculture in its entirety. I am particularly fond of Amendment 487 – Mrs Aguilera, please listen: 487; As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture, you have a real duty to fight for this request.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! We need negative emissions and we need them as soon as possible – this is the IPCC’s clear message. And this legislation is a very important step towards achieving negative emissions more quickly. That is why I would like to thank all those who have helped us to hopefully have a broad majority in plenary tomorrow, first and foremost Lídia Pereira and her team with Luis and Lawrence, but also everyone else. We will see, first of all, that private capital flows into these markets because there is now a clear framework, and I also see this as an income opportunity for farmers, who carbon farming operate – additional sources of income. But we also need these technical solutions. Personally, I was very impressed when I was first told how direct air capture works – it is already possible to extract CO2 from the air and produce products from it. It's infinitely expensive, of course, but how expensive was photovoltaics in the 1990s, and today it's almost unrivaled cheap. That is why we must start promoting this technology as soon as possible, and I believe that at least this technology should also be included in the European emissions trading scheme as soon as possible. So a clear signal: We need negative emissions as soon as possible and we need incentives for all those who invest in this area.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! We need to fight climate change globally. If we don't do this globally, we won't make it. That is why these climate conferences, however arduous and arduous they are, are extremely important. I also do not think that it is right for us as Europeans to always point to others and say: They have to do something. We must set a good example. The European Union has per capita emissions of 6.25 tonnes. Some countries like Poland or the country I know best have even more. And countries like Cameroon and Tanzania have less than 0.5 tons per capita. Anyone who says: "The others have to start before we do anything" is wrong. But on the other hand, it is also intolerable for international conferences to continue to pretend that China is a developing country. China now has higher per capita emissions than not only the EU as a whole, but even higher per capita emissions than Germany and Poland. And that's why it's so important that we break this old phalanx - Annex I, not Annex I - and there's the Commission's negotiators - Commissioner, congratulations on that - at the technical level. loss and damage A historic breakthrough has been achieved. This must also be confirmed at the climate conference.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Reducing pesticides and ensuring their safe use is an important and correct goal. But bans are not the right way to go from our point of view as an EPP Group, including from my personal point of view. That is why we do not support the objective of banning in sensitive areas; We are already negotiating this in Parliament. But we also do not support a ban on glyphosate, which is a very important plant protection product in practice. And when our own bodies, EFSA and ECHA, our European experts on food and chemicals, say there is no problem, I say to S&Ds and Greens: Listen to Science! Listen to science, not only when it fits, but also in new breeding methods and also in glyphosate. There's one added. We have a dramatic increase in food prices. People are currently suffering more from the rise in food prices than from the already very dramatic rise in energy costs. Food prices are the drivers of inflation, and if we remove an important plant protection product from the range, then it becomes more expensive to produce food in the European Union. Price increases are then, so to speak, arbitrarily brought about. That is why I thank the Commission for its proposal. It is based on scientific facts and does not make food production more expensive. It's a good suggestion. Many thanks to Stella Kyriakides and her team.

So, I will respect that Rule and you can see the graphs on social media. So, also, die Emissionen sind stetig zurückgegangen. Wir sollten auch mal stolz sein auf das Erreichte und – auch im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes – können mal durchatmen. Kann die Luftqualität besser werden? Ja, sie kann. Es gibt viele technische Möglichkeiten. Wir haben erreicht, dass bei den Schiffskraftstoffen jetzt auch der Emissionshandel gilt. Das wird helfen, insbesondere in küstennahen Städten. Aber ich und wir als EVP-Fraktion halten es für übertrieben, was der Umweltausschuss beschlossen hat. Da steht was von Fahrverboten. Da steht es, dass wir Baustellen stilllegen, dass Industrieanlagen in dieser schwierigen Phase, wo die Industrie droht, aus Europa abzuwandern, stillgelegt werden sollen. All das ist unangemessen. Deswegen sollten wir uns auf die Änderungsanträge verständigen, die der Kollege Lins, Kollege Knotek und viele andere mit mir gemeinsam eingereicht haben. Eine maßvolle Regulierung, die nicht zu Fahrverboten und Stilllegung von Industrie führt. Bitte unterstützen Sie diese Änderungsanträge.