What Tom spoke about.

Mr President, ‘It is war but no one sees it’: This is the name of Huib Modderkolk's book about digital espionage and sabotage by secret services, which can now also be seen on Dutch TV as a documentary, with our esteemed colleague Bart Groothuis as the star of the show. ‘It is war but no one sees it’: This also applies to everything that happens on the seabed. But the warnings about Russian espionage and sabotage plans in the North Sea and the concrete examples of sabotage are numerous. The boss of the Dutch MIVD, General Jan Swillens, already told us the facts: the Russians do not have one ship, but a whole programme aimed at mapping the underwater infrastructure in particular, so that they can possibly disrupt it. The importance of submarine cables and pipes is enormous: 97% of global communications are via undersea internet cables, 40% of our electricity should come from the sea by 2030, and the pipeline from Norway supplies more than 25% of the gas we use in Europe. It is therefore very good that the European Commission comes up with further plans to protect our undersea infrastructure. But this, of course, is not enough. Steps we can take with 27 countries are going too slowly. Action is needed now. We cannot and should not all want to do this at the same time. That is why the CDA advocates a European front group for the protection of underwater infrastructure, together with NATO. Cooperation between countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, the United Kingdom and France. The first steps have been taken, but it is still too slow. We need fast physical security, cybersecurity, international cooperation and alternative cables. We have a responsibility to protect our critical infrastructure, our citizens, our economy. It's war on the seabed and everyone should see it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, as rapporteur for industrial policy on behalf of the EPP, I have been saying for a number of years now that climate policy – the European climate policy, the European Green Deal – cannot do without European industrial policy. This is what we are seeing in the solar industry today. Because while we in Europe are increasingly greening and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, we are getting a reliance on other parts of the world in return. Namely, a dependence on batteries, on electric cars and also on solar panels. Currently, around 80% of solar panels are produced by Chinese companies and mostly dumped on our European market thanks to Chinese state aid. This means that our own industry is under a lot of pressure, while it is precisely our own industry that should benefit from the fact that we in Europe decide to switch to green technology. On the contrary, this should create opportunities for European industry, but we are not sufficiently successful at the moment. We are not sufficiently successful in protecting our businesses and we are not sufficiently successful in putting genuine European industrial policy alongside that pillar of climate policy. That is the task for the coming years. Let this be yet another lesson for the European Commission that one cannot do without the other.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fair story is that we are currently getting the raw materials we need in the energy transition from countries such as China, Russia and Congo. Our dependence on it is being used against us. The supply chain is unstable and the working conditions and environmental requirements in those countries are not up to our standards. In short, if we want to continue on the path of clean energy – and we want to – that also means making difficult choices. That does indeed mean looking for other partners, recycling more and using less, but it is naive to think that we are there with that. We will have to mine more ourselves on land where this can be done responsibly, but also in the deep sea where this can be done responsibly. That is precisely why we advocate European cooperation in the field of responsible deep-sea mining, with which we quickly expand research into the ecological effects, where we are fully committed to technological development and where we will also apply for permits without immediately proceeding to exploration, simply to strengthen our position in the world. The rest of the world is not standing still. We need to act strategically.

Mr President, Commissioner, our ports are the gateways to Europe, but we are giving the keys to China. Under the motto of ‘open world trade’ and market forces, we have seen a startling increase in Chinese investments in European ports in recent decades. We see this Chinese influence in more than 22 European ports. We see it in Hamburg, in Piraeus and also in Europe's largest port, the port of Rotterdam, almost 75% of container terminal capacity is owned by companies from China and Hong Kong. Our European ports are not only about the terminals, but also about Chinese scanning equipment, Chinese cranes, Chinese cameras. Intelligence services have been warning for some time about the growing Chinese influence in our ports. They mention the risk of espionage, of sabotage, of economic dependence. We know China's agenda. With the New Chinese Silk Road, they are building a position in critical infrastructure in the world and making countries increasingly dependent on them. Dependence is a problem. Shouldn't we have learned that lesson with Russian gas? With influence in the ports, China has the opportunity to frustrate our imports and exports and to frustrate our imports in the areas of defence equipment, critical raw materials and energy. We have the responsibility to leave our world well to our children, the responsibility for our security, our economy, our jobs of the future. But it's going to be difficult to protect our way of life in a China-dominated world. In short: A European response is needed. The public interest is currently not sufficiently protected. There can only be a European solution. Ports are competing with each other and currently they are doing so for Chinese investments in exchange for giving up control in their own port. This is not in the public interest. Our Commissioner has already replied to this issue on a number of occasions that the European Commission believes that there are sufficient instruments to deal with this, but I do not agree with that. The FDI mechanism, the screening of foreign investments, is a matter for the Member States, which must do it themselves. But the big problem is that European ports compete with each other. This means that if the Netherlands were to say to the port of Rotterdam on the basis of this mechanism: ‘We no longer allow Chinese investments’, then those Chinese investments go to other countries, to Antwerp, to Hamburg, if those Member States do not comply with the same agreements. So that's the problem. There must be European agreements. We need a European port strategy that reduces that foreign influence and at the same time strengthens the competitive position of those ports. Certainly if we are critical of foreign investment, we must of course ensure that the much-needed investments for our ports are there. Public and private. We also need these investments to ensure that ports can take their place in the energy transition, because of course they have a lot of potential and a lot of opportunities as energy hubs, for energy carriers, for energy generation, for the import of critical raw materials, for CO2 capture and storage, for maintenance stations, for offshore energy facilities, as hubs in transport systems that support the energy transition. In short: Lots of opportunities. A European port strategy is urgently needed. I would like to thank colleagues for their good cooperation. Tomorrow there will be a large majority in favour of this report and the signal from this European Parliament is therefore crystal clear: “European Commission, take back control in our European ports. Protect the public interest and come up with a European port strategy.”

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the demand for electricity is growing rapidly. And that electricity, which we need to make our mobility, our industry, our built environment more sustainable and to build a hydrogen economy, we need to produce without greenhouse gas emissions. Together, renewable energy sources and nuclear energy can provide climate-neutral electricity. As far as I'm concerned, they are each other's allies in the fight against fossil fuels. Especially in countries with scarce space, such as my own Netherlands, we can provide part of our energy mix with nuclear energy. Small modular nuclear reactors are a very interesting option. They are safe because of their so-called walk—away safe-design. Heat can easily be removed and the plant automatically cools itself in the event of an incident. The serial factory production also makes it easier to monitor quality, the modular construction makes the cost price interesting and the financial risks are manageable due to the size. In recent years, together with colleagues, I have frequently called for European cooperation in the further development of these small modular nuclear reactors. In doing so, we are working on climate policy and increasing Europe's strategic autonomy. Let us jointly invest in research, development and production of small modular reactors. Let's work together to streamline and accelerate permitting. For serial construction, clear and stable policy is needed and uniformity in regulations. Above all, let us not be afraid of nuclear energy, like one part of this house, because that is not necessary. Let us not see nuclear energy as a solution to everything and use it as an excuse not to have to do anything else, like another part of this house. The fair story is that, in addition to renewable energy sources, nuclear energy will undeniably play a greater role in the energy policies of the EU and its Member States. Anyone who closes their eyes to this does not take the climate problem seriously enough. In short, get to work.

Mr President, in recent years we have been under pressure when it comes to our dependence on other parts of the world. Paracetamol became scarce in the coronavirus crisis. Our dependence on Russian gas was used against us and for our economy of the future, for example, we depend on China for batteries and critical raw materials. The 21st century calls for a realignment of our priorities. The proposal we are discussing today, the Strategic Technologies Platform, is such a new priority. For the green industrial policy we want, we desperately need this new technology. We must therefore also free up the means to ensure that we do not become dependent on others for this new technology. But to those colleagues who keep demanding a bigger European budget, I say this: New priorities mean making choices. New priorities mean reviewing existing spending. Let us therefore also discuss this in the coming months.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we in the Committee on Transport have been following this dossier very closely. Energy efficiency is a subject that is actually given far too little attention – including in the public debate – because less use is ultimately essential. We are drawing up all kinds of major strategies in Europe on how we can become less dependent, how we can produce more energy ourselves, how we can mine more raw materials ourselves. But in the end, everything comes down to the following: If we are able to use a little less, become more efficient, it means that we have to do all kinds of other things less. That is why I would like to congratulate my colleagues who have been working on this very intensively all along. I sincerely hope that we can bring this to a successful conclusion.

Mr President, we are adopting a substantial package of climate legislation this week. That was a long and difficult process and my compliments to the colleagues who played a role in it. I think there are two important lessons to learn. The first lesson is that in Europe we can make far-reaching choices. Choices that will not always be popular because their impact will be felt in many sectors. But it's choices we need to deliver on our promise to future generations. After all, we have to borrow the earth and society from the generations that come after us and that requires us to look beyond our own interests and our own time. It is good to see that we in Europe are able to deliver on that promise. But we must also be critical of ourselves in this Parliament, because in a number of laws the level of detail has become far too great. Member States and regions are different and really know best what works for them. In order to achieve our goals, we must also make customization possible. So do not arrange everything up to six decimal places from the Brussels negotiating table, but rather room for decisions that are taken close to people, even if that leads to differences between them. So, two lessons. We can make important choices. Nice, but let us in this House also, please, pay close attention to the elaboration of the laws that we are making here together.

Mr President, renovating and isolating the built environment is essential. A very important task, because 40% of our energy consumption comes from that built environment, so we really have a task there for future generations. But the question we have to ask ourselves here in Parliament is whether the regulation that is being proposed is also suitable for achieving these goals. Does it work in our cities? Does it work in our villages? Does it work for our households? And the answer to that question – for the regulation now proposed – is simply ‘no’. This proposal will be a disaster in implementation. The Commission has taken the seat of municipal councillors and prescribes how many parking spaces there should be for cars, for bicycles. This Parliament also wants to add rules in the field of acoustics. That is far too much detail for something that needs to work across the European Union. Moreover, it is far too expensive – including for a country such as the Netherlands – to introduce it in this way. This costs more than EUR 1 billion in the Netherlands, which only goes to bureaucracy, without 1 euro of this going to the actual renovation of houses. In short, back to the drawing board. Keep those high ambitions in the area of renovation and insulation, but leave the implementation to the Member States, so that tailor-made work can be delivered.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have a responsibility to build a clean energy system and thus to pass on our world to our children. But we also have the responsibility for the raw materials we need to make that transition, the raw materials for our windmills, solar panels and batteries. For many years, Europe has left this to other parts of the world. 98% of rare earths come from China, and 69% of the world's lithium supply comes from Congo. Not only have we become far too dependent on this, the fair story is also that we have saddled other countries with the impact on the environment of extracting our raw materials. And that while we can also win critical earth metals in Europe. We need to be willing to mine and refine ourselves. The left side of this Parliament is all too eager to make it more sustainable, but at the same time is putting a brake on the mining in Europe of the raw materials that we desperately need for this. That's not my idea of taking responsibility. With European cooperation, let us get the European mines up and running as quickly as possible. In doing so, we not only take responsibility for the raw materials we need ourselves, but also for our strategic position in the world.

Mr President, Commissioner, with the new Chinese Silk Road, China has been making countries dependent on it for years and strengthening its position in the world. It's going to be incredibly difficult to protect our way of life in a China-dominated world. And that while we have the responsibility for the world of our children, our economy of the future, our jobs of the future. In short, a European response is desperately needed. And the Global Gateway plans presented have also been presented as the European response to the New Silk Road. The European Commission shows that it wants to think strategically, with projects and partnerships in the field of energy, in the field of raw materials, digital infrastructure. These are indeed examples of how we can act strategically with the Member States, with European budgets, with private investments elsewhere in the world. It is also an alternative based on European values for those countries that get caught up in Chinese strangulation loans. But where we think strategically elsewhere in the world, European countries themselves are often far too naive about the growing Chinese influence in Europe itself. Two thirds of the container terminal capacity in the port of Rotterdam is owned by companies from China and Hong Kong. If it is up to China, the port will soon no longer be the gateway to Europe, but the end point of the new Chinese Silk Road. 160 000 Dutch households currently receive electricity from solar parks in Chinese hands. We see Chinese parties in our 5G networks, we see Chinese scanners in our ports, maybe at airports. We see Chinese cameras in our cities, Chinese electric buses in our regions, and Chinese companies take over promising European chips start-ups. China is strengthening its position in Europe under our eyes, and that must stop. So the real answer to the increasingly dominant China is not only investing elsewhere in the world, at the neighbors, but above all more control over our own back door.

Mr President, I have heard the Commissioner and many of my esteemed colleagues today say that there needs to be an answer to the US Inflation Reduction Act. I think that is fundamentally wrong. We don't have to answer. We need to strengthen our own position. In my report on industry from September last year, we called in this Parliament for a genuine European green and strategic industrial policy. We called for more European cooperation to quickly have enough clean and affordable energy, because our companies need it to be competitive. We need to work more together to invest heavily in strategic technology for the economy of our future, such as batteries, solar panels and computer chips: Technology that we don't want to depend on others for. We also need to work better together to protect our knowledge and technology so that we don't first invest a lot of taxpayers' money and then find out that our promising companies have been taken over by Chinese parties and the knowledge disappears from Europe. Mr President, when it comes to our economy of the future, our jobs, we should not react to others, but we should be at the wheel ourselves.

Thank you, Commissioner, for the answer but for the EPP, this is not enough. I would really call for the European Commission to come forward with a European port strategy. We really need to stop the sell-out of our European ports; national intelligence services have already been warning about the risk of espionage, of sabotage, of economic dependence. But definitely for the future, we should stop making sure that the Chinese Government has control points in our critical infrastructure. And we would really like to ask the Commission to come forward with a specific strategy for European ports.

Madam Commissioner, at a time in which we are blackmailed through our dependence on an autocratic third country on energy, we have to make sure that this will not happen again in the future. Unfortunately, the reality is different, because if we look at the recent decision of the German Government to accept the Chinese investment in the port of Hamburg, we see that we are facilitating this Chinese influence on European soil in European ports. There are at least 22 European ports currently where there is Chinese influence, and this influence over the European ports is problematic because it has the potential to undermine our security, the economic independence and resilience of the Union. Now the ports themselves they point to each other if you ask them why they accept these investments; they say we need to do it, if we do not accept them, our competitor in another European country will. We played against each other in a time where we should stand side by side. And my question to the Commissioner is how do we make sure that our ports remain competitive without being dependent on foreign investment?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in a changing world, people are looking for security. It is our responsibility as politicians to provide that certainty where possible. This certainty is also important in the field of energy. Energy is a public interest that we have left far too much to the market in recent years. There are three things that are important to me now. Firstly: Let's only take measures that increase that certainty. A European price cap on gas purchases is therefore also a bad idea, because it puts our security of supply at risk. We therefore see in the Commission's proposal between the rules that the Commission itself is also reluctant to do so. Secondly: Let us seek better European cooperation in energy production and procurement. Let's make better connections. And let us also make it clear that one country's own choice to close a nuclear power plant, for example, has an effect on energy security in another country. There can be no solidarity without each country taking its own responsibility in the common interest. And thirdly: Let's make sure we don't depend on one role in another. Russia is using energy as a weapon against us. Let's make sure that that weapon of dependency never comes into the hands of another.

Mr President, an important piece of legislation today, because the protection of our critical infrastructure is very important. We have seen how vulnerable our energy infrastructure and our data infrastructure can be. But while we are working on this legislation here at European level, Member States are opening the back door to foreign influence. 22 European ports have joined forces with Chinese investors, giving key control points in our supply chain in the hands of foreign powers. A European port strategy is needed. We must stop the sale of European ports. This means that we must work towards a strategy in which our European ports can remain competitive without being dependent on foreign powers. Because free trade is something other than handing over our critical infrastructure. We have a responsibility to ensure our economic security for the future.

Madam President, my thanks to colleagues for the debate and I also want to thank the shadow rapporteurs of the other Groups for the intense discussions we had. But in the end, we found each other. We have a broad majority for the call for a clean, competitive and resilient European industry, and that we need to be more strategic. And there are some clear messages in our reports to the Commission. There cannot be a Green Deal without industry policy. If we want to deliver on the growth strategy that the Green Deal promised, we need industry policy, and the clear message we have for the Commission is, come forward with the transition pathways of the industrial ecosystems. Give us the pathways that show what is needed in the sectors for the energy transition, for remaining competitive, for what kind of breakthrough technologies are needed, how the regulatory burden on the ecosystems is. And we really call on the Commission to come to Parliament with these pathways and then have also an annual debate on where we are on these pathways so that we can monitor where we are with the sectors, because industry policy, in the end, is also about adapting measures that seem to work or seem not to work and making sure that we act swiftly, that our European industry will become more resilient, it will become more competitive on the pathway we have. So for us, as Parliament, this report is not necessarily an end of the process after reacting to your various industry strategies. We need to stop updating the industry strategy all the time. We need to have an annual debate on the pathways of our ecosystems. For us, this is not the end of the process, it’s the start of cooperation between us and you to make sure that our industry will thrive, that we achieve the goals we set in the Green Deal but that we do that with a competitive and clean and resilient industry. So thank you very much, I’m looking forward to the cooperation.

Mr President, colleagues, as a politician, but above all as a father, I see it as my duty and my responsibility to do everything in my power to pass on the world a little better to our children. And that mission seems bigger than ever today. Our way of life on this piece of earth is under pressure. But I believe that we can do it as a European Union, if we start to think more strategically, if we start to focus more on the long term and if we start to work together much better. And that is the core of this report. Today, the European Parliament is committed to strategic and green industrial policy. We need to think much more strategically in the European Union. The dependence of other parts of the world on medicines and medical devices during the coronavirus crisis is not in our interest. The dependence on Russian gas, that dependence that Putin is using today as a weapon against us, is not in our interest. And the high dependence we have on other parts of the world for chips, batteries and solar panels, essential parts of our economy of the future, is not in our interest. Our share of the global chip market has gone from 25 percent to 10 percent. 60% of the lithium we need for our batteries comes from China. And of the top ten solar panel manufacturers, seven are Chinese and none are European. We also need to be less naive. Letting Chinese scanning equipment in our border surveillance, Chinese equipment in 5G networks and crucial technology flow through joint ventures in China is not in our interest. And let's not make the same mistake with China as with Russia. Our dependence is too great and it can be used against us. We need to strengthen our strategic sectors. And strategic thinking also means that research and innovation are crucial. As long as we think and develop things that make the rest of the world depend on us, we are stronger – or we are stronger – at the geopolitical negotiating table, so that we too can get what we need. Mr President, in addition to being strategic, I also mentioned green. Today, the European Parliament sends the message that we want to keep our businesses in Europe and that we want to help them become the most sustainable and competitive companies in the world, so that we in Europe produce the products we need in our economy of tomorrow in a clean way and that we also keep the jobs in Europe. This means that a reliable government provides energy infrastructure, sustainable energy, and that we protect European companies where necessary. Strategic and green industrial policy, together we can do it. This report appeals to everyone: businesses, governments, knowledge institutions and consumers. Everyone has a responsibility in our common interest. In Europe, we will never see the private investments we see in the United States. We will also never see the amount of state aid that China invests in their strategic sectors. No, the European Union's weapon is cooperation. We already see examples of the power of European collaborations in, for example, CERN, Airbus, and also in European regions. In Brabant, where I come from, Brainport Eindhoven is developing into a world-class high-tech manufacturing industry player through close cooperation between companies, knowledge institutions and governments, of strategic importance for the Netherlands and Europe. Think more strategically, focus more on the long term and work better together. Only in this way will we be able to preserve the prosperity and security of our continent and pass it on to the generations that come after us.

Mr President, energy efficiency has been a neglected child in energy policy for far too long. And even now – now that we see that the bills for households and businesses are no longer payable – government leaders are still turning around each other without coming to firm agreements in the field of energy savings. And this while more efficient use of energy is really a self-evident choice: for the energy bills of households and businesses, because every kWh we don't use is cheap, for reducing our dependence on Russia, because every euro we save does not end up in Putin's war coffers, and for the climate, because the cleanest energy – as many of my colleagues in this debate will say – is the energy we do not need to generate. That is why I think that the European Parliament's desire to increase the energy efficiency target is good. I hope that the Council will soon join in.

Mr President, our common goal is to leave the world well to our children. That is why we need to achieve our climate goals. Taxonomy is an invitation to private investors: Invest in our clean energy system of the future. The taxonomy therefore specifies the conditions under which investments can have a positive impact on the climate. For nuclear energy this is quite clear, because nuclear energy plays an important role as a stable and clean base alongside solar and wind. Gas is not called green at all in the taxonomy. The taxonomy states that in some places in Europe under strict conditions and where there are no alternatives, much dirtier coal-fired power plants can close if we temporarily invest in the cleanest gas techniques there, so that people can continue to heat their homes and at the same time we take steps towards our climate goals. It is a matter of realism. It is a matter of taking responsibility. If we want to achieve our climate goals, we don't have the luxury of excluding technologies. Not one's own right, but the common goal must be paramount.

Mr President, the threat of cyberattacks on our critical infrastructure and on our economy has increased. Cybercriminals, for example, have our energy system in their sights and we know that there is a political agenda behind it. I should like to thank the Commissioner for the proposals he has made in this area. In the cyber domain, attackers are always looking for weak spots. And as a defender, you have to do everything right, while as an attacker you only need one weak spot. That's why we need to think much more strategically about which parties we allow in our critical infrastructure to reduce the risk of possible cyberattacks. I find it extremely naive that we use Chinese scanning equipment in European ports and at European airports to control people and goods crossing our border. I think it's naive that we use Chinese communication technology in our core networks. These are areas where we should exclude risks and stimulate European industry. For too long, we have been naive in protecting our European ideas, technology and data. Economic security is not only the responsibility of companies themselves, it is a public interest. We are too vulnerable and let us work together in Europe to reduce that.

Mr President, we have had nights of meetings and difficult compromises, but I would like to thank the rapporteur for the good result, and also the colleagues, the other shadow rapporteurs and, in particular, Commissioner Simson for her personal efforts – also deep into the night. And this file is really about something. It is strategic legislation, because the enormous task ahead of us in terms of the energy transition, but also in terms of becoming less dependent on other parts of the world, can only be tackled effectively by working together at European level. We need much more cross-border infrastructure and cross-border energy projects. I am pleased that, in the agreement reached, we are also giving space to all the technology that we have at our disposal. Because in order to effectively make the energy system sustainable, we cannot exclude technology. We simply don't have that luxury. The current energy crisis, exacerbated by the horrific war in Ukraine, once again makes it clear that the European Union is too dependent when it comes to energy, and therefore also blackmailable when we would like to keep our backs straight. The package before us today is, in my view, an important step towards greater European cooperation in this area. Much more cooperation is needed in this area. In the field of energy policy, it is still far too much for each country. It's a stamp policy, there are plenty of examples of that. Where, for example, Germany and Belgium are moving towards phasing out nuclear energy, the Netherlands is – rightly, I think – investing in new power plants. And no matter what choice countries make, we need much more coordination when it comes to energy generation. As far as I am concerned, it is time for us in the European Union to better coordinate our plans for a sustainable energy system and to deal with this stamp policy. In this way, we make our system more sustainable, we also keep energy bills affordable, and we also ensure that we become less dependent on other parts of the world.

Mr President, Commissioner, the political focus on cleaning up our energy system has rightly been high in recent years. But at the same time, we have left affordability and security of supply too much to the market. And that is now reflected in energy bills, at the pump and in our dependence on Russia. It is morally unacceptable for me in these black days on our continent that we contribute 600 million euros a day to Putin's war with our gas and oil imports. This dependence needs to be reduced quickly. But that's not easy. This requires realpolitik in our energy policy. Ask countries that want to shut down nuclear power plants: ‘Keep them open.’ Ask gas producing countries: ‘Deliver us more’, and ask households and businesses to turn down heating. Let's accelerate solar, wind and hydrogen projects and better connect the energy systems of European countries. Europe has been rudely awakened from its geopolitical and strategic hibernation. We need to be much more able to generate our own energy, to defend our own European territory and to produce essential products such as medicines, batteries and computer chips ourselves. It's time to take responsibility for our place in the world again.

Mr President, almost 30% of the EU population lives in border regions. Regions which are often a long way from national capitals and often feel left behind by them. Today’s topic is an example of this. At the same time, these border regions are among those that benefit the most from European cooperation and experience its successes and flaws on a daily basis. Being able to cooperate with regions and municipalities on the other side of the border improves daily life in those regions, for people and for businesses, for example, in the border villages of Baarle—Nassau, in the Netherlands, and Baarle—Hertog, in Belgium. In order to improve cross-border cooperation, the Commission has proposed a mechanism which would allow Member States to use each other’s legislative framework as a means to overcome obstacles. The European cross—border mechanism could help to remove 30-50% of such obstacles and would enable many new cooperation possibilities, such as Project Crossfire, a joint Dutch—German fire brigade in the Twente—Achterhoek—Münsterland region. This project has the support of the regions on both sides of the border, but has been delayed for several years due to the differences in legislation between both countries. The Commission presented its proposal in May 2018, and Parliament adopted its position more than two and a half years ago. The Council, however, has been dragging its feet for the last two years, first by waiting over a year for a legal opinion and then by taking another year to shelve this file altogether. This is not transparent, not democratic, and this is not the way for institutions to work with each other. We understand that some Member States have legitimate concerns, but the best way to address those concerns is to discuss them and to put them on the table. We therefore call on the Council to take a position and to start negotiations with us: maybe governments in the capitals feel that the border regions are far away, but for us, in the European Parliament, and the EPP Group, border regions are at the core of our policy.

Mr President, Commissioner, ‘Can I still pay the bill?’, that is the question that, with the coming winter, hangs like a dark cloud over very normal households. We have promised the next generations to switch to clean energy, and we have to keep that promise. But the promise of security of supply and an affordable price – a public interest – has too easily left governments alone to the market in the energy transition in recent years. Due to the rapid closure of coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants, we now need plenty of gas. 40% of our gas comes from Russia, and that country likes to keep its hand on the gas tap if it suits them. In addition, market demand is high because countries are emerging from the crisis at the same time, which means a high price. The situation is complex. There are no quick and easy solutions. In the short term, only national governments can keep people's energy bills manageable. Countries will also have to build up larger gas reserves so that we do not have the same debate here again next year. And in the longer term, European cooperation can and should ensure a sensible energy transition and a sensible phasing out of the current system. We need to reduce energy demand by, for example, better insulating homes. The cleanest and cheapest energy is the energy we don't use. We must significantly increase the production of solar, wind and nuclear energy in particular, because the current situation again proves that we do not have the luxury of sweeping technology off the table. And we need to better connect countries' energy systems. In short, a robust energy system and a sensible transition, because a warm home for your family should not depend on your wallet.