Speeches

Mr President, using our energy more efficiently is one of the most important ways of saving energy. After all, we don't have to generate every kWh that we don't have to use. The Energy Efficiency Directive is good, but implementation is lagging behind. I talk a lot with people who want to make their homes more sustainable, but often this hangs because of a lack of money or knowledge and because of complicated subsidy measures. Everything falls or is in the process of being implemented by the Member States. Remove barriers and make it easy. Sometimes it's easier than you think. Take this LED light. It looks like a light bulb, but it's an LED bulb. If we replace all lamps in Europe with LEDs, we will save 65 billion euros on our energy bills. This saves us as much energy as we now generate with 500 coal-fired power plants. 500 coal-fired power stations! And yet this does not get the attention it deserves. There is still a lot to be gained, especially at a time when the energy bill is having a huge impact on the spending of European citizens.

Mr President, so if the colleagues would wait, you know, I have to refer back something. And we know what happened two weeks ago! So first of all, thanks everyone for the hard work in the last year, and especially also the last two weeks. I think the result is well-balanced and you’ve seen the support in this House. It gives us a very good starting point in the negotiations with the Council. But Mr President, I need to ask for referral back to committee for interinstitutional negotiations under Rule 59(4).

Madam President, for the CBAM Chahim Report, I would like to ask on, based on Rule 200, the referral back to the Committee, and that we will not vote today.

Mr President, Commissioner, Council. We have been discussing the whole day that we need to make sure that the climate law targets will be achieved by the position of Parliament. I think that every sector needs to contribute its fair share to the EU climate effort if we want to reach the Paris Climate Agreement and climate law targets, and it’s the same I think for land—use change and the forestry sector. I am very happy that I can pronounce it now. I do believe that natural—based solutions are a key part of the Fit for 55 package. I think the compromise we have on the table is well—balanced. I think it’s good not to include too much flexibility when it comes to agriculture, because there’s a lot of insecurity when measuring and capturing the CO2 in these natural—based solutions. Then there is CO2 and cars. The key word here is ‘lobby’, and the lobby machine was working really hard in this House. I never thought that the 2035 phasing—out of the combustion engine would be at risk, because I thought that’s like the minimum we should get. I mean, that’s the position of the Council, and we should always push for more ambition. I talked to industry and industry told me ‘well, Mohammed, it is possible, but then we need more alternative fuel infrastructure. That’s what’s lacking now’. Then I’m thinking that’s the exact same lobby that years ago, when the Commission proposed an ambitious alternative fuel infrastructure directive – now we’re talking about a regulation – well they lobbied it so it was decreased ambition. Now they say we cannot go forward due to the lack of infrastructure. There you have it. There’s always an excuse not to go forward. If you work and if you talk about real jobs, the future of the electric car is the future of the car industry in the EU, including the batteries. That’s what’s at stake tomorrow. I hope we conscientiously decide to vote in favour of the changes, to vote in favour of the climate law.

Mr President, I will be a bit shorter than I was this morning to compensate for the time, of course, that I took this morning. I think all the arguments are on the table. We know where we stand. The real topic of debate is, are we going to deliver on the climate law? We need a Parliament that pushes for ambition because we know it will not come from the Council. It is unacceptable that we are risking having a package coming from Parliament that is less ambitious than the European Commission proposal and does not fulfil our obligations defined in the climate law – because that’s what’s at stake today. So don’t ask whether we take into account what some industry can accept, but whether the efforts of industry to decarbonise are acceptable for society. That’s the question of today, and that’s the question we need to answer.

Madam President, Commissioner, Madam Minister, dear colleagues, this week the Parliament can make history by supporting the CBAM proposal. We will extend our carbon pricing system to producers outside the EU because that’s what we are discussing today. After months of hard work we found compromises that were not easy to find, but I think will be supported by different majorities in this House. Let me first start by thanking my team, our advisors and the Secretariat of the Parliament. For our European climate ambitions CBAM is a crucial part of Fit for 55. It is the only tool we have to incentivise global climate action. And it’s historic because we are in fact extending our own emission trading system, our own CO2 legislation, to the rest of the world. And the positive effects will be twofold. First, we incentivise our trading partners to take climate action seriously. And second, we are levelling the playing field and apply the same CO2 price for imported products as we do for our own European producers. And thanks to this level playing field, we can finally phase out our current carbon leakage measures – the so-called free allowances. Because they are preventing us from truly applying the polluter—pays principle. And the compromise we have is a very reasonable compromise. It balances between the starting date of CBAM and the phasing—out date of the free allowances. It covers the right sectors and emissions. Some want us to have a CBAM and keep the free allowances. And I can tell you, my friends, you cannot have your cake, eat it too, and get the cherry on top. It frustrates me that at the same time, these people pretend to fight for the cause of the Climate Law. I take the Climate Law very seriously, so let’s not make laws knowing we will break them. So how do I see the future of Europe, or how do you see the future of European industry? Because that’s the most fundamental question we should ask ourselves. What do we envision the industry will look like in one or two decades? CBAM creates a level playing field and helps us preserve jobs. We need to stop our fossil fuel addiction. If the current Ukraine crisis did not make us aware of this, then what will? And ‘business as usual’ will become more and more costly. The price of doing nothing will be unbearable. We need to start producing in a clean and sustainable way. Let’s not lose our global advantage. And it’s very tempting to listen to lobbyists, and it’s hard to counter their arguments because the Fit for 55 package is very complicated. And while their CEOs tell you that they are in favour of all the climate action, their representatives, their lobby machine demands the exact opposite. And only taking current interests into consideration makes you blind for the future. Because I see many front runners in the EU that are willing to scale up to make sure that we find the crucial elements to decarbonise and keep our leading position, our competitiveness compared to the rest of the world. And these voices are not always heard, not always heard in this Parliament, because they do not have the capacity to lobby as many other big companies have. And our task as Parliament is to listen to these voices of the future, because in a couple of decades, we can decarbonise our industry, be state—of—the—art and leading clean production worldwide. That’s what I envision if we make the right choices this week. Not only supporting industry that needs heavy subsidy to survive. And the front runners are popping up all over the world. We are not leading in every sector. There are sectors outside the EU that produce with a lower footprint. And one of my key motivations as a Social Democrat in supporting the Green Deal is that I see we can create new jobs and that we can decarbonise. We can lead the world in fulfilling the Paris Agreement with more than just words. Companies will determine at one point if they stay in the EU or not – not on the basis of the CO2 price, but whether we have enough green molecules, whether our electricity grid is strong and green enough for them to decarbonise. We see this already happening. You only have to zoom in to see it. And if it comes to free allowances, we are using hundreds of billions of public money to continue investing in fossils. Unconditioned free allowances are not working the way they should. They are not helping us decarbonise. We need to redirect investment to the right companies that help us thrive and win the global race of decarbonisation. The train of decarbonisation is running and the question is, are we going to catch the train, or are you going to leave that bus? The vote is tomorrow. So we have one day left. Maybe instead of reading emails of lobbyists, it is time to listen to our children and grandchildren and the voices of young generations. It is time for the European Parliament to deliver what is needed for the Climate Law and for future generations.

Madam President, I promise you I’ll stay on time. Yesterday, the EU launched a fifth package of sanctions against Putin and his allies. We strongly welcome this and the establishment of the EU and Ukraine joint investigation team. We have to collect evidence and investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, as we have witnessed in Bucha and other places. But the question is: is this enough? And the short answer is no. We cannot continue doing business because that is what we’re doing by importing Russian gas, knowing about the atrocities that have happened in Ukraine. We, as the European Parliament, need to send a clear signal and support a total ban on fossil fuels from Russia and hit Putin where it hurts. We need this total ban on oil and gas imports to be effective immediately. The sooner the better. As President Michel said, we need this probably sooner rather than later. Well, are we going to wait until Putin decides to cut us off? He already asks us to pay in roubles and we see that he is dividing us. Some Member States have cancelled all imports and others are really considering paying in roubles. We need to stop this. Better to be one step ahead than in panic mode. And the good thing is that we have a plan to get off fossil fuels. We have REPowerEU and our European Green Deal. We can accelerate the process by delivering on the Fit for 55 package and accelerating energy efficiency and deployment of renewables. We in the S&D Group are ready for this. Who would have thought that the European Green Deal would become an act of resistance against Putin’s hostilities?

A very short follow-up, because I think the latest moment for us to really still tackle these two very important issues within this legislative period is, let’s say, June 2022. So let me just ask a fairly simple, strict yes or no question. Can we expect these two legislations, let’s say, by 22 June 2022, yes or no?

Dear President von der Leyen, two and a half years ago, you shared with us your vision on the European Green Deal and called it our ‘Man on the Moon’ project. You’ve had the full support of S&D on this. However, we can only call the Green Deal a success when we finish it as a whole. That is what my Group has signed it for. Lately we have seen some adjustments in the timeline, some legislative files have been postponed, some even twice. Yes, we understand that when we are dealing with an unprecedented situation and skyrocketing energy prices and some see this as the perfect excuse to delay. But the climate crisis cannot be paused. The biodiversity crisis cannot be paused. So my question to you, Madam President, can you agree that our ‘Man on the Moon’ project will only succeed when we have a complete European Green Deal? Do you agree that we are in a biodiversity crisis and desperately need the Nature Restoration Law and the revision of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive? And can you explain to us why this is postponed twice?

Madam President, the IPCC is very clear: we have no time to waste. The previous IPCC report already stated that everything needs to be done to combat climate change. We only have a small window to secure a liveable future, and this window is closing. How many times do we still have to tell each other we need to do more, we need to act now, take leadership, lead by example? Also now, the IPCC report stresses again and again the urgency to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Why? Because limiting global warming reduces the number of people both exposed to climate-related risks and poverty, and has a much-needed impact on our biodiversity and our vital ecosystems. Not to be dramatic, but our livelihood depends on it. I believe that the EU has the resources and know—how to make the energy transition a success. This means investing in the right plans and technologies. Accelerating the energy transition is crucial, which will not lead to a carbon decrease in the EU but also help other regions in the world jump on the green wagon. We’ve seen this for wind, we’ve seen this for solar, we’ve seen this for batteries. These technologies became cheaper because of innovation. However, as Mr Timmermans has stated, probably we need to ramp up our global ambitions. And I wanted to ask the Commissioner here: what do you think we can do globally to accelerate our plans? What is our message towards the COP 27? But I want to say something to my colleagues here in the room, because this report is a wake-up call, and I know that decarbonising from also a strategic perspective, will increase our autonomy, make us more resilient. So, please, stop pushing for delays, and get yourself behind the European Green Deal – our way of a secure, resilient and carbon—free future for the EU.

Madam President, first and foremost, I would like to emphasise that the European Green Deal and its underlying strategies will make our food system in Europe more resilient in the long run. And I am therefore a bit amazed by the EPP attempt to use this crisis to undermine and delay the European Green Deal, the Farm-to—fork strategy and the biodiversity strategy. We should stay on track to reach the goals we set out in the European Green Deal. That being said, in the light of the current crisis, we need, yes, some more flexibility to ensure food supply and food security in Europe as well as outside Europe. And I fully support the EU’s willingness to help third countries when necessary. Many countries, especially in Africa, are largely dependent on agricultural products like wheat from Russia and Ukraine. Supporting them and sharing our knowledge and expertise with other countries can make their food production more resilient and lower their dependence on Russia and Ukraine. Besides temporary measures to increase our own production, we should also realise that there are other ways to improve our food system. Healthier diets, wasting less and greater biodiversity are just a few measures which can make a huge difference.

Mr President, let me be very clear: We need to get rid of Russian gas. It is not only undesirable, but even immoral to continue to bait Putin's treasury at this time. And those who think that the prices have only just been shot up by sanctions, make no mistake: The prices were already high. Putin has been tampering with gas prices for a long time. We need to get rid of such manipulative practices as soon as possible. How are we going to do that? We have seen today a wonderful plan, REPowerEU, a realistic plan to cut gas from Russia by two-thirds this year. And let us not forget: One of the best solutions we have already exists, called the European Green Deal, our medium-term plan. In addition, there are certainly still big gains to be made in terms of energy savings. You don't have to import energy that you don't consume. For example, gas demand can be reduced by about ten billion cubic meters by reducing the thermostat by one degree. Let energy efficiency and energy saving become acts of resistance to Russian aggression. Now is the time to act. Don't let our households, vulnerable groups and our small and medium-sized enterprises suffer from Russia's high energy prices. It starts with strategic independence.

Mr President, we continue to look away from a global approach, with the risk that there will soon be a mutation that we are no longer protected from. And that's how we're back to square one. The only way out of this crisis is to give everyone the opportunity to get vaccinated. Sharing knowledge and licensing plays an important role in this. But we always hear the same arguments: producers who say that it is impossible to scale up production in the short term, and producers who argue that it is not possible to outsource their prescription to other producers, because the making of the drug listens so closely. The problem now lies not only with vaccines, but also with medicines that help fight inflammation in COVID – medicines now used by rheumatoid patients. There is a global shortage. This shortfall was already predicted in September and delivery for January is not guaranteed. And this has consequences for both rheumatoid arthritis patients and COVID patients. For the latter group, there is simply no alternative. Time and time again we in Parliament have talked about the release of patents and time and time again this increasingly loud call is ignored. We don't even deliver our promised vaccines. When will the intervention take place? When are we going to opt for an end to this crisis instead of producers' property rights? Let me end with a quote from Winston Churchill: “It is not enough that we do our best; Sometimes we must do what is required.”

Mr President, when it comes to the state of the energy union there is both good and bad news to consider. The good news is that the energy and climate objectives for 2020 have largely been met and renewables overtook fossil fuels as the number one power source in the EU. Overall, the EU energy and climate trends in 2020 were quite positive, but they still fell short of what is really needed to achieve the objectives of the energy union. We need to reduce our energy dependency and increase energy security by cutting down energy imports, eliminating subsidies for climate— and environmentally—harmful energy sources, and taking a leading role in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Let us talk about energy poverty. Energy poverty affects up to 31 million people in the EU, according to the latest data, and this issue has to remain in sharp focus in light of the economic challenges of COVID—19 and the current price situation. In this regard, we welcome the Commission statement on exploring the benefits of joint procurement of energy reserves as an addition to the toolbox in combating high energy prices. Let us continue on this path of transition and, if opportunities arise, show courage and accelerate our decarbonisation.

Mr President, the COVID variants that dominate today are so contagious that we will only achieve group immunity with a very high percentage of those vaccinated. Some experts hope for 90% or more. Currently we see that the delta variant mutates further. To prevent the virus from mutating even further, everyone should be able to get protection from a first or second shot. From a preventive point of view, it is good to give our vulnerable and elderly people a booster shot where possible. Yet we continue to look away from a global approach. A multi-front war is not won by sending only soldiers to one front. We are still not looking at a global approach. As long as we do not, the variants continue to develop and we remain stuck in the situation we have been in for 22 months. Just the numbers. While in Europe we have already fully vaccinated more than 65% of all adults, in Africa we are around 6.5%. Just imagine: You work in healthcare in Africa and you haven't even had the chance to get vaccinated yet. Of the millions of vaccines promised by the EU, less than 10% have been delivered. Yet in Europe we continue to block the sharing of licenses. Let them produce themselves. If we had started that 22 months ago, we would have been further ahead than we are now. Because I don't see why manufacturers like Pfizer and MSD Organon are willing to share their patents for a corona pill, but continue to struggle with their vaccine licenses. As my colleague Kathleen Van Brempt said here a few days ago, Pfizer, Moderna and BioNTech made more than a thousand dollars in profit per second this year. And that with research funded largely by public money. We should not want to choose between vaccinating or giving a booster in Europe and vaccinating the rest of the world. Scaling up remains important, but we must keep the promise to deliver more vaccines to continents like Africa and help them with their own production. That will only be the beginning of the end of Covid. Otherwise, I fear that even the Greek alphabet does not have enough letters to describe the variants.

Mr President, I hear a lot of mixed reactions after the COP26 in Glasgow, but personally, I’m a half-glass full person, maybe even a little bit more than a half-full and I think I’m not the only one. Just after COP26, I read a very interesting interview with a prominent professor in climate science, also one of the lead authors of the IPCC reports, who said she was much impressed by the results of the COP26. To quote her, ‘I've been to many COPs, but what I’ve seen in Glasgow is unmatched.’ I believe she is right, because let’s look at the results – there’s an international alliance that commits to ending fossil fuels and the landmark words ‘we’re taking it to the final conclusion’ recognising the need for action on fossil fuels. There’s a methane pledge to significantly reduce methane emissions, essentially to slow down global warming. And there’s an international alliance to stop deforestation, even signed by Brazil. But the most important accomplishment maybe is that for the first time ever, the world is recognising the importance of 1.5°C or keeping 1.5°C within reach. Staying under 2°C is not enough. The Paris rulebook is finished. Article 6 is established. This sets up the much needed framework for an international carbon market. This creates an opportunity to collaborate on a global level and use the best available technologies, achieving the highest decrease in emissions in the most cost—effective way. All ingredients are on the table to keep 1.5°C within reach. However, we still need developed countries, banks and industry to take the responsibility and divert investments in the right direction. Just a small anecdote, I was talking to the Minister of the Maldives and what she said really stuck with me – just imagine 85% of your neighbourhood, of your city or your village becoming uninhabitable. Because that’s what countries like the Maldives are facing if we don’t act. So we urgently need to update our nationally determined contributions. We have the momentum now. Let’s work hard the coming year and we are on the right track. We need to take a big step in Egypt. I think it will be a busy year and I wish us all the best.

Mr President, the energy transition is essentially a material transition from fossil fuels to raw materials that are essential for the production of solar panels, windmills and batteries, but also, for example, the production of hydrogen and raw materials that are now often found in many other products. We're going to need a lot more raw materials, because it's simple: Without solar panels, without windmills and without hydrogen, our energy transition is in jeopardy. Critical raw materials scarcity should not stand in the way of our European strategic plans, such as the European Green Deal or the digital transition. I think it is a good thing that we in the European Parliament are presenting this own-initiative report today as a basis for better managing this problem. We need to think about creating an EU standard on the extraction of raw materials. This concerns not only standards for sustainable extraction of raw materials, but also social standards. And all this in good consultation with the local population and authorities. We must not only depend on mining activities outside the EU and look away from the conditions under which this happens. Our standards must also apply outside the EU. Of course, we need to make more efficient use of the raw materials we have and also stimulate this use: Re-introduce, promote reuse and create a market for this. Because the extraction of raw materials causes more CO2 emissions than reuse and with the smart use of raw materials we can reduce our CO2 footprint. Circularity is important here, but for that we also have to think about the design of products. We also need to get a better picture of where in the economy these raw materials are to recover them. We need to be more vigilant, because that's important. We must do this together and I am pleased that the rapporteur has taken this point from me. Finally, we must focus on innovation and research to find alternatives to certain critical raw materials, because this will reduce the pressure on these materials and achieve a better balance between supply and demand. Mr President, we still have a lot of work to do. This is the last time we are discussing this issue here. I believe that this own-initiative report is a great starting point for the Commission to move forward with.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Minister, two years ago I was also here for my first plenary speech, and even then it was about a climate resolution: the climate resolution for the Madrid COP. And even then that climate resolution was full of wishes and desires, but to be honest, we went to the climate summit with few concrete plans at that time. We had a call: "Join us!", but it didn't get any more concrete. Yes, “We have ambitions, we have a wish, we have a dream to be climate neutral by the middle of this century.” But it's really different now. We're two years away now. We haven't been idle for two years. We have the European Green Deal. We have our Climate Law and we have the ‘Ready for 55’ package. Mr. Liese, I totally agree with you. The Fit for 55 package is our response to the energy crisis we are experiencing now to become more independent and to gain better access, at affordable energy prices. So this year we are going to the climate summit with concrete plans and we call on everyone to join us. Let me use a slogan from another political party: we need to ‘take it forward’ now, because climate change goes beyond Europe. We must translate the promises of the Paris Agreement into action and ensure sufficient international funding. This is also where Europe needs to show leadership and motivate others to do the same. I hope that I will be here next year to talk about COP27 and that we will at least conclude with each other that Glasgow has succeeded in implementing the Paris Agreement, so that we remain below that one and a half degree or at least that one and a half degree is within reach. But I also hope that we have taken the first steps towards an international pricing of CO2. Mr President, the resolution before us is a good basis for a discussion with our partners worldwide in two weeks' time. I now have high expectations of Glasgow, as I did then in Paris, especially when I see that America is back at the table and China has also stated that it will achieve climate neutrality, although around 2060. Let's not forget that the Chinese started their industrial revolution 100 years after us.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Gandhi once said that the civilisation of a society can be measured by the way it treats animals. Inspired by this and looking at the Farm to Fork strategy, I would like to say that the civilisation of a society can be measured by how we deal with animals, climate and biodiversity. The current mass production of processed food and intensive livestock farming contribute to an abundance of problems. The excessive use of antibiotics, pesticides and fertilisers causes a loss of biodiversity, an increase in animal-to-human diseases, animal suffering, climate change and unhealthy eating habits. We in Europe need to talk not only about the total amount of food we produce, but also about its quality. The quality of our agricultural sector is one of the best in the world and must remain so, but with the least possible use of harmful substances and harmful emissions. Where it was first about producing as much as possible and as efficiently as possible, quality and local production must again be central. And our farmers must get a fair price from buyers, purchasers and other intermediary companies. Because that too can be said, no, that must be said. Producing below or at the cost price is simply not acceptable. It is high time for a change in which healthy, affordable and sustainably produced food are central. This is not only in the interest of the climate, but also in the interest of everyone's health and, above all, in the interest of our farmers. So I say: support this compromise, support this resolution.

Let me start with a statement. Politicians who merely link the excessive price increases we face today to our climate plans are fooling their constituents. In addition, they do not seem to be interested in a good analysis to arrive at solutions that help in the short and long term. But it's our job to protect households and our entrepreneurs. It is unacceptable that these people will soon be out in the cold. I already see several companies that have to stop their production because of the high energy prices. But what we see today is the price of non-intervention. Our climate plans lead us to an independent and affordable energy supply throughout Europe, for the whole of Europe. We are still too dependent on foreign countries. We should not be held hostage by countries like Russia that deliberately keep our gas supplies artificially low. This has to change. And yet other measures are needed in the short term. On behalf of my group, we have written a letter of intent to President von der Leyen and Commissioner Kadri Simson. Among other things, we call for compensation measures and the collective purchase of gas in order to have our gas stocks in order. Mr President, this is not the first time that I have been standing here advocating a fair distribution of the burdens and pleasures of the energy transition. That is a key point for us as social democrats. But do we dare to have a discussion about the disproportionate burden of high energy prices and taxes on our SMEs and households? That's not evenly distributed now. The polluter is still not paying. And that is a political choice. It is a political choice that the costs end up with these groups. And we have to change that choice.

Mr President, I will not surprise you and say that we at S&D welcome the Fit for climate package. This is proof that we have passed the stage of pledges. With this package, we have entered the stage of action. But now I hear political groups from the left to the right expressing their concerns about parts of the package, and that reminds me of a famous cartoon. When someone asks a group of people ‛who wants change?’ everyone cheers and raises their hands. But then he asks them ‛who wants to change?’ and the room remains silent. If everyone that’s worried about parts of this package being too ambitious wants them taken out of this package, what will remain? Nothing. We, as S&D, are ready to deliver. However, we need to talk about the severe revision of the ETS, including a revision of the free allowances. We need to talk about progressive energy taxation. We need to talk about the just transition. We need to talk about whether we are willing to directly support consumers to become more sustainable, and of course about the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, about effort-sharing, etc., etc. We are willing to talk about every single point in this package on the two conditions that the total is balanced and that we meet our objectives – and, of course, that the gains and burdens are shared in a fair and just way.

Madam President, as a Parliament, it is very important today to send a clear message to this Presidency. We need to continue to work together to make sure that our European strategic plans, like the European Green Deal, do not get delayed. We simply cannot waste time. Dear Prime Minister, I urge you to make the European Green Deal and the Fit for Climate Package, as they say in German ‘Chefsache’. This package will assure that we significantly decrease our carbon footprint and show the world we have realistic plans that can inspire us all. We need to focus on the long-term successes we can achieve instead of the short-term profits. We need to transform our industry, making it the most sustainable and most competitive in the world. Create future-proof jobs and decrease our dependency on foreign fossil fuels. We need jobs, new jobs in east, south, north and western Europe. Next to this, another important task, as you mentioned, in your Presidency Programme and also related to this, will be the preparation of the COP 26 in Glasgow, a ‘make or break’ COP. We need a strong European presence. We need high ambition, and we need to make sure that the national contributions meet and match the Paris Agreement. Dear Prime Minister, everyone can make a promise, but it takes leadership to take action and action is what we need. Thank you and the very best of success.