Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, of course, I would also like to thank Lukas Mandl, who has done an excellent job and who reminds us - a lot has already been said - that in 2021 the Swiss Federal Council, unfortunately, decided to unilaterally end the negotiations on a comprehensive agreement, a horizontal agreement with the European Union. It is regrettable because it did not resolve the issues of deeper cooperation between the European Union, on the one hand, and the Swiss Confederation, on the other, but merely postponed them into the future. We want to work more closely with the Swiss, on an equal footing, in respect of mutual sovereignty, but also on a fair and legally, contractually regulated basis. First of all, this applies to electricity, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I believe that we must ensure that no new trench can be created between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation in the field of electricity, because a single internal market for electricity and networks creates resilience and security for both partners. At the moment, the window for an EU-Switzerland agreement would be more favourable than ever before. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine is raging in Europe, as has already been mentioned. The European Union therefore has a keen interest in even closer relations with its democratic neighbours. The Swiss National Council, the parliament, and the Council of States, the regional chamber, also have the same plan. Secondly, of course, there is also the Swiss contribution to cohesion, which has not yet been mentioned. Compared to the EEA countries, the Swiss contribution is still simply too low, especially since Switzerland benefits greatly from the stability in the European Union's environment, both economically and politically. One is tempted to call out as Europeans: Hopp, Schwyz! That is why, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we should adopt the report and continue to negotiate until we reach our goal: closer cooperation.

Madam President, Commissioner! Thank you very much for this excellent debate. I think you just have to be clear again at this point: You, Commissioner Breton, have done an excellent job in the crisis with President von der Leyen. Some things may not have been as successful as one would have liked, but the way to put the interests of Europe's citizens at the centre was right. And we want to go further with this proposal. That is why I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs and the rapporteurs from the other committees very much for their excellent cooperation. It's true that we don't want a fair weather right, like René Repasi said that we really want to equip the internal market with teeth, because it is not about the companies and because it is not about the politicians, but because in the end it is about the citizens getting what they need most in a crisis, namely medical items and vaccines. And it's not about anything else. Many colleagues who took the floor today also referred to the Commission's proposal. I do not want to make any further comments on this, because I believe that we have seen that we have dealt very intensively with the individual points. We have not come to identical solutions in all places, but I think we have found a very good middle ground, which we now want to represent together with the Council. And, of course, the European Parliament is needed in such a crisis situation, and that is why we will try to defend this point very clearly. It cannot be an executive decision alone to declare a crisis. Nevertheless, I would also like to say one more point to those who have given the impression to some extent that the Member States – in this case, I believe, Poland – can also come through the crisis on their own: It has been made very clear, including by colleagues, that, in the end, citizens, from whatever country they come from, will of course all benefit if we can organise cooperation between Member States in the best possible way and get all the products. Mrs Lexmann's point that a European home office regime would be desirable is correct. And that is why, Commissioner, I would suggest that you re-engage with your colleague from Luxembourg, Commissioner Schmit, in order to see if the European Commission can still address this possibility in this legislature. I look forward to working with colleagues for the trilogue and thank you very much for the debate.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! In the coronavirus crisis, we saw how quickly Member States brought back border controls in Europe because we were not sufficiently prepared for the crisis, and this almost brought the economic heart of Europe to a standstill. We want to defend the European single market. We want to ensure that the Member States keep this single market open because this is the only way to ensure our economic performance. By applying the Single Market Emergency Instrument, we are providing a clear response to the challenges of the COVID pandemic, but also to the challenges of Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. We want the European Union to remain capable of acting and fully functioning even in a possible future crisis. That is why we have expanded the law. IMERA also aims to make the internal market more resilient, as it makes it much easier to deal with an emergency when procedures are already in place before the crisis. It is already clear from the name that this law is about protecting the internal market in the event of an emergency and building resilience in advance. This is important because these are concrete measures that ensure the continuity of EU border regions – and this is particularly important to me – for crisis-relevant service providers and workers and our supply of crisis-relevant products and services in the next crisis. With a functioning colour system, the crisis situation in the European Union is then divided into green, orange and red: In the green phase, Commissioner, the European Commission can develop crisis protocols and carry out simulations. Companies can test their resilience through voluntary stress tests. In the yellow phase, in the more dangerous phase, the so-called surveillance mode, the Commission is empowered to carry out, in cooperation with the Member States, an inventory of goods and services of strategic importance. Border closures have severely restricted our daily lives, and we want to prevent that. Therefore, in an emergency mode, a regulatory case must apply in the future, that the Member States may no longer issue import bans and border closures remain prohibited. Crisis-relevant personnel such as doctors and nurses should be able to cross the border in the future by showing a simple QR code. Information on health and work status should be provided online by means of standardised forms. However, the Commission must already prepare for this, so that all digital fast lanes are ready for use in the event of a crisis. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The proposal also strengthens the independence of companies. Because the proposal relies on voluntary contributions from the economy to solve a crisis: Stocks and supply chains of crisis-relevant products can be reported to the Commission, while trade secrets, sensitive data and protected know-how remain protected. However, it is important to me that the issue of priority production enquiries, which Commissioner Thierry Breton also brought to the fore during the crisis, should be maintained. In any case, we want to avoid that companies based in the EU supply private business partners as a matter of priority during the crisis. We want to strengthen the European idea that Europe's Member States and citizens can be supplied first and foremost in a crisis. This is why we need this legal instrument and it is not bureaucracy. Corona has shown: National solo operations in border closures, procurement or export controls do not work. Only if every country, every single country in the European Union is safe, are all in the European Union safe. Therefore, today's law will strengthen the free movement of persons and ensure the supply of crisis-relevant goods to all EU citizens. That is why, after the vote tomorrow in the trilogue, we want to lead the project to success by the end of the year. That is why I ask for your support.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Artificial intelligence systems can make an important contribution to addressing the societal and economic challenges of the future. My previous speaker pointed this out. These systems can be accessed from any mobile phone or PC around the world, and this demonstrates – as the rapporteur has already mentioned – that we as a Parliament must have a strong interest in the existence of basic global rules on artificial intelligence. And, Commissioner, in my view, it is therefore first and foremost important that we as Europeans know what our idea of a fairer, fairer, digital world is. The Artificial Intelligence Act should become our beacon after the end of the trilogue negotiations, which shows which risks are high, yes, and which risks can also be too high for artificial intelligence to leave the question to it alone. In this respect, the idea put forward by your colleague, Commissioner Breton, is, even before it enters into force, a AI Pack to create, quite conclusively. Secondly, ladies and gentlemen, the economic use of artificial intelligence systems is, of course, subject to competition rules, such as those laid down in the Digital Markets Act. Artificial intelligence in this sense is nothing more than a platform whose algorithm uses a specific data set. We must also fight for equal opportunities in AI, because immense investments have already been made or are still necessary here, which of course force the economic use of these systems. However, this can only be allowed under the rules of fair competition. Thirdly: That's why we need a global agreement, preferably beyond the G7, on the use of artificial intelligence, based on a voluntary international code of conduct that also includes international standards. It is clear – and this is what your colleague, Mrs Vestager, is working on – that our AI Act – and this has been made clear before – has the potential to pioneer future international agreements. We should share this potential.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! It is good that today the Swedish Presidency is taking up the debate in the European Parliament and working with us on what more we can do to make Europe a real place for further investment. We were in Singapore with the Single Market Committee a few weeks ago, and large sovereign wealth funds have been investing in the United States of America rather than the European Union for many years – and even today. That is why we need to think about what we can improve in order to bring such investment decisions even closer to Europe. Commissioner Reynders, I have listened to you very carefully, of course, but it has reminded me a bit of my time in France, where I once studied and where the press is very much concerned about the situation. ‘la pensée unique’ Annoyed me. I believe that we are not too self-critical about our own policies in Europe. That's why it was rightly mentioned at the very beginning that we need to invest more in resilience. Of course, there are a number of markets where we can do more. We need more resilience in the European internal energy market. For this, we need a proposal for a fully integrated European internal energy market. We need more resilience in the European telecommunications markets. That is why I am pleased that at least Commissioner Breton has taken up this idea. I hope that we can already prepare for this in the coming months. I have already mentioned the issue of investment. But there is, of course, a third issue that links the two, and that is particularly important to me as a representative of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection: We must make sure that our European rules, as far as the internal market is concerned, are equally applicable and applied everywhere. It is impossible for us to fall back on the principle of minimum harmonisation when it comes to laws that certain colleagues particularly like. Global supply chains, ladies and gentlemen, will not be guided by the minimum harmonisation between Luxembourg and Cyprus, but will only accept and enforce our values and our ideas if we envisage them uniformly in Europe. It is therefore necessary to create even more uniformity in the internal market.

This is a very, very important point. The EPP Group is very clear that direct total surveillance by artificial intelligence must remain prohibited, as proposed in the legislative process. There are only two exceptions for us for which we have requested a separate vote. This was also the case in the committee vote. That's why we don't want to fall in anyone's back. It was clear from the outset that there are a large number of colleagues - far beyond the EPP Group, by the way - who are simply looking for a solution to these two questions - on missing children and on terrorism - who want the speed of AI intervention faster than the legislative proposal foresees. I think that's why it's good that we're discussing it, and that's why it's good that we're also discussing it. And I think it's also good that we vote on it tomorrow. Then we will see how the majorities in the European Parliament are. But one thing is clear: We don't want to be like Russia and we don't want to be like China.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, a big thank you goes to all those who have worked out a really exceptionally good compromise for the Artificial Intelligence Act. Because, of course, it is important that with this global milestone that the European Union can set, we ensure that the rules we create in Europe apply uniformly to everyone in Europe and are not already subject to a race between 27 Member States within the European Union. Here, too, the European Parliament's proposal provides a very, very good basis for negotiations with the Council. I hope that we will succeed in enforcing this approach of full harmonisation. Secondly, ladies and gentlemen, it has always been particularly important to me that we try to avoid double regulation in innovative industries such as medical technology. Of course, a lot of artificial intelligence is used in medical technology, but the applications there are already clarified exclusively and conclusively by the respective specialist regulations. Double regulation must be avoided here, and this has also been achieved. Thirdly, I understand, of course, the concern of many colleagues to push the starting point for negotiations with the Council in a certain direction already now. The EPP Group has always said that there are certain political considerations that many of our Members find important. Countries in which terrorism has played a major role simply have a certain national identity that needs to be respected here. It is therefore good that there are appropriate options for voting. (The speaker agreed to respond to a question about the "blue card" procedure.)

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! The annual report on the European Union's competition policy is always a good indicator of which topics in Parliament are relevant for the preparation in this area. And I think we can quite rightly state that the Digital Markets Act for this year's work of the Commission is a whole series of decisions ahead of us, which must ensure that what the legislator has decided is also incorporated into the implementation of the law and that the implementation succeeds as we imagined it together. But we also have other legislative proposals ahead of us next year, which will also bring about significant changes. This is once the Merger Regulation – the Merger Regulation – and here we have an overlap with the report on the issue of telecommunications markets. And we have decided – and I believe that will also find a majority – to ensure that we have a fully integrated telecoms single market in Europe in the future, where national borders play a much smaller role, with the aim of creating an even more attractive offer for both users and the entrepreneurs concerned. To this end, we need adjustments to the Merger Regulation, including in its application – and Madam Vice-President, I hope for your support, because we are taking a big step forward in terms of competition in the global environment as the European Union. Of course, we will also look at the market definition, which plays a major role in the global context. In this sense, I would like to thank the rapporteur very much.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank Mrs Charanzová and our shadow rapporteur Marion Walsmann for their excellent work and to focus on two points that seem to me to be particularly important. The first is that this regulation, too – here too we are dealing with an amendment from a directive to a regulation – ensures that what is prohibited offline is also prohibited online and that what is allowed online remains allowed offline. This is important because we want to achieve a harmony of rules between the digital and analogue worlds. This is important because this regulation is so old that it could not initially cover all the digital products and services that need to be regulated today. And that is why we are taking a big step forward for the internal market, for the safety of consumers. I am very grateful for that. Secondly, I also believe that it is precisely in the event of a crisis – and we are also dealing with the consequences of the coronavirus crisis together with some colleagues – that we must ensure that non-harmonised products can also be approved quickly in the event of a crisis – of course only in the event of a crisis and only in the event of a crisis – but that we can, to a certain extent, adequately expand the General Product Safety Regulation here in the event of a crisis in order to ensure that, in the case of masks or other non-harmonised products – for example, masks that are not intended for everyday clinical use – we can act quickly in the event of a crisis and avoid what happened at that time during the coronavirus crisis – namely that products have suddenly piled up again at the borders, at the customs borders, because the Member States have not forwarded them because of doubts about product authorisation. This did not help us in the crisis. We should change that. I therefore think that the work on improving the single market for the coming years is unfortunately not yet over. That's why I look forward to further work on it.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The importance of the online gaming market has already been explained several times. Today we are dealing with an extremely relevant topic, especially for many young people in Europe. The video game industry is one of the fastest growing creative industries: 24 billion turnover – this has already been mentioned. One in two Europeans is involved, and it is therefore very important for us, as Members of the European Parliament, to deal with the content of the activities in these games without setting any guidelines, but to come to the Commission with a review mandate that should not only examine and review the behaviour of players, the incentives they provide, but also the great opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to make economic progress in this area. Existing consumer law needs to be applied and self-regulation should be encouraged. This is expressed exceptionally well in the report by Mrs Maldonado. And I am also particularly grateful to our shadow rapporteur, Antonius Manders, for particularly protecting young consumers when they buy so-called Lootboxes He put it at the centre. Because, of course, young people want to expand the gaming experience, but at the same time it must also be the case that no false incentives are set and children and young people are somehow put into an incentive to indebtedness, only to be successful in a game. These are points that we need to deepen with the Commission in the coming months and that is why I look forward to further cooperation.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The single market is much more exciting than what we have heard so far. If we did not have the single market, we would have to invent it. You pointed out, Madam Vice-President: . It's true, in German you would probably say: The Single Market helps us to do business with each other, both economically and personally: economic, because we have the opportunity to allow a very large number of small and medium-sized enterprises to operate cross-border in the first place, because they do not have a legal department, because they cannot afford an export department. The same goes for workers, of course. They can only afford the prosperity we have today because we have the 55.56 million jobs that exist only because of the single market. Of course, the single market is more than just an economy. We've heard about the babies born through Erasmus. Border openings would never have been possible if the economy had not put pressure on us to do so. That is why we should also understand 30 years of the single market as a mandate that what we have achieved gives us the opportunity, for example, to bring together the means we need to help Ukraine against Russia. Because we love freedom, because we love the open markets that create this opportunity for us and that also motivate the large number of members of our population to keep this economic force. As we look to the future, Madam Minister, the Council must of course always ask itself whether we do not need to take further steps forward. The single market – the set of rules that bind us together in Europe – goes far beyond economics. That is why I would like you, Minister, to make constructive use in the Council, for example, of the discussions on the emergency instrument for the internal market in order to see where we need to move forward in Europe, even if it goes beyond economic matters. For example, the obligation to standardise home office rules is something that is particularly important in border regions. This is where we need to move forward! I'm sure there are many other ideas. That's what we should talk about today. It's anything but technical, it's exciting!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Critical infrastructures are increasingly only conceivable and usable across borders in Europe today. It is therefore good that we have just heard what the European Commission has said about how we can better protect critical infrastructure together – which includes not only energy transmission networks – and that, of course, we must also ask the question if damage has occurred, who caused this damage, and, secondly, how we can avoid such damage in the future. In this respect, the question today actually takes into account the fact that, of course, we are all concerned that we are jointly responsible for the infrastructures that lie between our countries and that they need special protection, especially if they lie at greater depths between countries. That is why I believe it is right that the Member States and the neighbouring countries, which are all in NATO, have agreed together to ensure a higher level of protection here. However, I believe – contrary to what the introductory colleague said: The European Union has not seized power, but is simply that for internal security in the Member States there are the competences that have remained with the Member States themselves. This also applies to military and security issues, including the intelligence services. On the other hand, however, it is also true that there is a general responsibility for transmission in critical infrastructures in the interests of citizens and the internal market, and this is now a case-by-case issue of gas. However, other means of transmission, such as oil or telecommunications, could also be accepted. In this respect, there is certainly an interaction between critical infrastructure, which must be controlled and protected by the Member States on the one hand and, if necessary, also jointly. As you rightly pointed out, we are on the right track. But that needs to get even better. Secondly, of course, there is also a utilisation effect for companies operating in the internal market. This gives rise to the Commission’s mandate to ensure that these services can operate across borders. We, as the EPP Group, pointed out a few weeks ago that we need a single internal energy market in Europe, which is also subject to full harmonisation, when we find, just at the borders, that cooperation and the expansion of the interconnectors are not yet going as fast and as well as we would like, in order to make the whole of Europe energy-resilient in the end, i.e. prepared for an emergency. Something similar, Commissioner, also applies, of course, to telecommunications transmission networks, because here too, as we saw in the beginning in Ukraine, we are particularly strong when we have a lot of links with neighbouring countries, because we can much better compensate for possible failures of individual local species. Thank you very much for your comments, Commissioner.

Mr President, Commissioner! On Twitter, the European Medical Association points out today that it urgently asks for: ‘European doctors aim to ensure the availability of medical devices.’ This is a warning signal that we cannot take note of with the usual technical calm here. If young children can no longer be treated because the necessary items are no longer available, because there are bottlenecks in the approval procedures, then this cannot leave us cold. This is initially a catastrophe for the patients concerned, but it is of course also an economic problem, because the approval process is now faster in the USA than with us. That is why, Commissioner Kyriakides: Here is political leadership requested. It's not enough to say that something is being done here and there. You have to take the political responsibility to ensure that something is moving forward at this point. If we do not act now, we will lose more than 20,000 certified products in two years. And we cannot allow ourselves to do so in the interests of patients, but we cannot allow ourselves to do so either, because our economy thrives on it. Therefore: Please take personal action now.

Madam President, Commissioner Breton, ladies and gentlemen! We are talking today about the road to a digital decade, and I would like to highlight three points following what Mrs Carvalho has said. First of all, I believe that it is very important that the European Union pursues a value-driven digital policy. And that is why this declaration on digital rights and principles, which you, Commissioner Breton, and the Commission have presented, is of fundamental importance. Digital policy in Europe must meet the same standards of value as the classic economic and social policy we pursue. There can be no different digital policy. That is why I believe that, secondly, we have achieved a lot in recent months: The Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, the Data Act – and we are still waiting for the specification of the Data Acts with regard to automobiles – these are important steps. But for all these steps, we need integration into the respective departments, and we do not need a separate digital supervising authority, as is currently envisaged in the Artificial Intelligence Act. Digital policy must take place wherever politics already takes place today, and there must always be a balance with analogue services and digital services. That is why, lastly, thirdly, Commissioner Breton: I think we need to talk about them too. Spectrum policy rethink – because if we really want to achieve a Digital Single Market, if we want to become more competitive in telecommunications services, we need a cross-border market, and telecommunications providers need more opportunities to do so. That's why your courage is needed. I would like to encourage you to do so; Parliament stands by your side.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! We put the issue of a single internal energy market on the agenda today because we believe that what we have so far is not enough to collectively make our Member States stronger, more resilient to challenges as we have seen them in recent months. This means: What we started in Europe in the 1990s, what we called the internal energy market, is de facto an incomplete internal market, because it is precisely the Member States that remain responsible for building cross-border interconnectors. Even if they are necessary, Member States cannot build certain connections; even if the European Commission grants up to 70% for such links, which are important for the overall system, Member States may decide not to build. And that cannot go well in the long run, and that is why we need more full throttle in the internal market, we need more pressure that we actually put the whole thing at the centre and not the individual interests. The second argument: I believe – and it has already become clear, Commissioner, that we also need more leadership from you – that a European internal energy market can save up to EUR 300 billion in the next ten years, because we are relying on synergies between the Member States. This is what will matter, because if we do not act with the Member States, we urgently need more European initiative from the European Commission. That's not easy. But if we try together, I think we have a chance. That's why I'm happy that we can talk about it today.

Madam President, Commissioner, Presidency of the Council, ladies and gentlemen! The opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market is, as always, relatively balanced, because we earn a bit of the money that the Member States and the Commission spend. That is why it was not a big problem to agree on the opinion here, but I would therefore like to highlight two issues that are particularly important for the colleagues of the Committee on the Internal Market. We know that in the budgetary procedure, as parliamentarians, we defend our budget, the Commission defends its budget and the Council tries to pay as little as possible. We respect that. But the legislation on the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act is precisely about creating a new regulatory entity across Europe, which together not only allows us to better enforce the principle of the social market economy, but also brings revenue to the Commission and relieves Member States of their responsibilities. That is why, together - and I am only one of many rapporteurs for the Committee on the Internal Market here - we are pleading for the European Commission to be provided with new staff in the area where it takes responsibility from the Member States, which is no longer needed by the Member States. The Parliament has only regulatory interests at this point and supports the idea of the European Commission to a certain extent. We know that it is not so easy in the budgetary procedure, so I would like to thank the colleagues who are taking care of this procedure, Niclas Herbst and Mr Lewandowski, for their support and wish that we deal intensively with the question.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! With today's decision to set up an AccessibleEU Centre, we are taking a step towards the single market, which some may not have expected so much, because we want to take into account the fact that this common living space, this common market, can only be shared if all citizens have the same rights and opportunities. Accessibility is not only an end in itself, but also a means to an end. It is right and important that we succeed in giving all Europeans the same opportunities through barrier-free access, especially in those areas that are of paramount importance for everyday life today. This is more difficult in some Member States than in others. It is therefore good that the AccessibleEU Centre now enables an exchange, a joint cooperation under one roof, which ensures that the best ideas spread across all Member States of the European Union and that we ensure that all citizens have adequate access. To this end, this centre must now be adequately equipped and the Member States and the businesses concerned must play their part in ensuring that citizens can ultimately make use of it.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! A uniform charging cable for small electrical appliances in the European Union is certainly good news. It is good news because the uniformity or standardisation of technical standards can focus competition on the places where citizens, users benefit the most and where we can simultaneously generate all the co-benefits that have already been described. I am very pleased that our colleague Toine Manders, who had the idea for Mrs Weiler's report back in 2009, is here today. It is important that we are prepared to enforce technical standards even if they are criticised in industry and business at the outset. We did the same with the GSM standard in Europe – 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when we actually organised competition in the telecommunications market through the devices and not through the standards, as was the case in the US at the time. Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, the telecommunications market has lost a great deal in Europe since then. That's why it's important that we think about how we can get more competition and more attractive markets there again. Today's report is certainly an important building block for this. Many thanks to all who support him.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! It's a great moment for Croatia to celebrate its 20th anniversary this year. We want to become a eurozone country, and our colleagues have already pointed out that: Croatia has worked hard on this path. Because monetary union – Commissioner, you always attach importance to it – is rules-based, and that's why whoever, like Croatia, respects the rules, is ready for the euro. This is extremely positive, and that is why we should support the course of the government there accordingly and ensure that the common monetary policy of the eurozone continues to follow the convergence criteria in the future, because without fiscal discipline a monetary union is not functional. That is why, after hard work, Croatia has proved itself in the end for this accession. It has already been pointed out that such financial conditions do not exist everywhere in the European Union. That is why it will be a matter of not only bringing Croatia into the eurozone in the coming months, but also of ensuring that we put inflation in the eurozone as a whole and the fiscal policies of the Member States on a solid path.

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioners, I would like also wholeheartedly to thank you for the trust that you have given to me when we were dealing with the law, with the draft law, and when there were compromises to be made. This has been a difficult situation for those who felt not to be the leading part of it, but you have made a big step for this law to be, in the end, a success for all of us. This has only been possible because you have made a step in favour of democratic compromises, which are the strengths of this House. I would like to thank you for that. Secondly, I think it has been a very strong cooperation also beyond committees, and therefore all those that have contributed in different committees have made their impact on the laws that even at the end might not always be seen as clearly as it was in the process. Also this has been of utmost importance. Certainly I am very grateful that the Commission has committed itself today to a very strong pathway to implementation. You know that we have been writing to the French Presidency, arguing that if we are stronger together, then it means that if we are now putting common tasks at European level in enforcing the DMA and the DSA, that also the manpower has to be shifted from Member States to the European level, at least in relation to these laws. And you know that we haven’t got from the Council side very emotional answers. Therefore, we would like to see more than just promises, we would like to see at least 150 staffers in the two relevant areas, to make sure that the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act get a reality, because it is true that nice laws may read well, but the end is that they be really strongly enforced – and for that we count on you. As I have been discussing last week with an ambassador of a very important democracy who said the European Union is the strongest regulator in the world. With that law that we did we lead the path, but we have now to make proof of modesty and smart application, and for that I wish the Commission all the best.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen! Tomorrow we will vote together on the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. And so, as Mrs Schaldemose has already mentioned, there is a great deal of work behind us. Europe is thus ushering in a new era of tech regulation, in which we ensure that the principle applies in the future: What was not allowed offline is also prohibited online. As the European Union, we are thus also playing a leading role on an international scale, because such a combination of horizontal regulation of markets and services does not yet exist. The European Union is thus leading the way as the most important legislative and regulatory body with the aim of keeping markets open and creating transparency about the functioning of algorithms. For the first time, platforms will have to assume responsibility for the legality of the content posted there. Quasimonopolistic enterprises are forced to respect competition along the principles of the social market economy. No longer the European Commission, but the companies themselves will have to prove that they allow free competition on their platforms, uniformly throughout the European Union. By focusing on the essentials, we have avoided unnecessary bureaucracy and strengthened the uniformity of European law. At the same time, enforcement is facilitated, especially in the case of repetition, by a tightened penalty framework. With the reversal of the burden of proof, we are creating a paradigm shift, especially in the disclosure of conflicts of interest and a possible ban on market-endangering takeovers, which has arisen from the experience of many competition proceedings. In doing so, the European Parliament has also achieved an important success, because we had already called on the Commission to intervene in this House in 2014. And that is why it is all the more important that we, as a Parliament, deliver today what we initiated eight years ago. But – and this also applies to the Commission – we are not only delivering, we have also significantly improved the laws on many points. Above all, we have made the two laws future-proof for future developments. In the future, users will be expressly given the choice of which service they want to use. In the future, users can expressly object to the cross-service use of their data. And transparency will again be required in online advertising markets in the future – true to the standard: Trust is good, control is better. Furthermore, a number of devices will become interoperable in the future, and this can also lead to a considerable simplification for messenger services. And finally: By applying the rules in the future, AppstoresSearch engines and social media have re-created conditions that rely on fairness between the parties and not on the right of the strongest. Therefore, in general terms, the self-preferentiality guided by business interests will be assessed from a competitive point of view in the future and no longer by financial investors. Because our common goal is for the best companies to prevail again in the digital markets in Europe and not only the largest ones. To this end, we must now focus on the implementation of the laws, and that is why in this year's budget we propose to hire a total of 150 staff members precisely for this task. This is not a general monitoring of the economy, but only a targeted monitoring of the commitments of gatekeepers in the context of the regulatory dialogue. Only if we are in dialogue on an equal footing can we be sure that European legislation will receive the respect it deserves. We owe it to our citizens and our businesses.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President! First of all, I would like to thank you because you always manage to hold the discussions that we have with each other in a very factual and very constructive way. This is very remarkable and also makes these debates very valuable, because we always feel that arguments that are presented arrive there and are implemented with the greatest effort. And that, of course, makes working on such topics all the more valuable. At the end of this debate, however, I would also like to take up arguments put forward by colleagues; This is also, to a certain extent, the core of this debate. I might like to start with Eva Kaili, who pointed out that, of course, we still see significant distortions in some digital markets. For this reason, the annual report on competition policy again refers to the advertising markets, which, however, we Digital Markets Act already referred to in Articles 5 and 6. There will be the question of which measure is faster in the end. The Commission has already initiated a similar procedure. The second point that Andrea Caroppo and Marc Angel raised is the question of energy prices. We spoke very clearly with Commissioner Breton in the Internal Market Committee and called for an integrated internal energy market. It is not yet in the report, but I believe that this would be a decisive step towards harmonising energy prices in Europe in the long term and achieving the resilience that Mrs Pereira spoke of. There will still be some pressure, but an integrated internal energy market would greatly benefit Europe and its citizens. Claude Gruffat pointed out that in tax law, although we had the special committee, we are far from where we wanted to be. But this will unfortunately depend on how the Member States want to continue this process, because the Member States remain responsible for tax policy. Nevertheless, it was an ingenious idea of the Commission to define, also by you, Vice-President, as unlawful State aid, the use of State aid law at the end of the day on favourable taxes. And Mrs Søgaard has also mentioned that we must of course make sure that state aid is made within a justifiable framework. And, Madam President, if you allow me to comment, incredibly high levels of state aid have been applied for during the coronavirus crisis. Only a small part has been paid. One country has applied for more than half of all state aid, that is the country from which Mr Repasi and I come, and I think it would be interesting for all of us to evaluate what has actually become of these state aids in the end, whether they have really had a notable and beneficial effect on the European economy. In this sense, thank you very much, Mr President, thank you very much, Madam Vice-President, and thank you very much also to all colleagues.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! The annual report on competition policy is always a good indicator of where Europe stands in terms of the openness of its own markets and the competitiveness of its own economy. Before we get to the individual content, however, I would first of all like to thank the colleagues from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, but above all, of course, Mr Andrea Caroppo, who drafted the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market. I believe that it must be said at the outset that the Ukraine crisis, the Russian aggression against Ukraine, in economic terms and probably also in competition law and competition policy, is calling into question much of what we have seen as certainty, and that therefore many competition law and competition policy issues will be re-examined in the coming years. But that is something that concerns many policy areas, and that is why it may not deserve special attention here today. Colleagues, the report is focusing on four major points that have to be addressed soon by the European Commission. The first is – and that’s a bit the backward—looking part of the report – post—COVID—19 phasing out of specific pandemic support measures. aimed, achieving the Green Deal and digital transformation. Here we have to look for recovery and the Green Deal to be combined. C, or third, the rise of e-commerce and the importance of large online platforms for competition rules. We have already discussed about that in this committee with a lot of questions that are here today when addressing the key proposals of the Digital Market Act. Finally, as a fourth element, mergers and antitrust: How New Digital Markets Require an Update of the Notice and the Definition of Relevant Markets. Colleagues, first I would like to stress that one of our priorities was to mention the necessity to phase out pandemic support measures step-by-step. I am a bit unhappy that today my group chairman has fallen ill because of COVID. It will hopefully be very easy, but we still hope that it will go away fully and, at least in competition policy, we believe that we have to call for a phase-out of the pandemic support measures. In this regard, the report highlights that the pandemic is ending and that we must return to market discipline. Markets need to do their work again to deliver innovation, growth and more choice for consumers. Furthermore, the European Parliament affirmed the importance of having competition policy tools that are well adjusted and complement one another. They will facilitate the twin transition between green and digital and will guarantee a level playing field, price signals for innovation and fair economic conditions. In our report, together with my comments, the shadow rapporteurs, we assessed the determined importance of a review of competition policy instruments in the light of then twin transition and COVID pandemic. Particularly important was the planned revision of the General Bloc Exemption Regulation. Another key element we achieved in the report has been the reference to enforcement of the DMA and DSA. We argued that the Commission’s priority must be to ensure and enforce DSA and DMA strongly, to show that Europe delivers contestable markets, fairness and the rule of law on the Internet. This is a very strong commitment that we share with all our disciples. Therefore, we expect the Commission to provide adequate resources, and we expect the Member States to give the Commission the money to allow for adequate resources in that respect. In this regard, I brought to the attention of the Commission the necessity to create more positions to face the growing portfolio of responsibilities since, for the first time, we are giving the Commission a direct enforcement power for two harmonisation instruments. The letter that we have been addressing, together with shadows, to the French Presidency is known by you. Colleagues, the two other elements that I have been mentioning at the beginning are as important as the last one, and I will come back to that after your comments. I am looking now forward to an open debate and I thank you for your attention.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! It is good that we are talking today about the right to repair, because it is a slogan that sends an important signal for sustainability, but we as the EPP Group also want to add innovation. You know I'm from the Black Forest, and the Black Forest is known for having a lot of tinkerers, mechanics, and do-it-yourselfers. And that's why it's kind of in our blood that we naturally deal with the question of which parts of products can be replaced and easily replaced. This is an important question, not only for people's technical understanding, but also for the sustainability of production capacities. That is why we strongly support this question today. We also see that there are more and more repair shops that want to explicitly accept such simple, interchangeable products that want to deal with offering users of now often complicated digital aids a service that enables them to deal with these means even faster and easier. And that's good. And that is why I am pleased, Commissioner, that you have taken such a balanced stance. Because we certainly need the slogan of the right to repair here on the one hand, which just makes it clear: We want sustainability. But on the other hand, we must also ensure that individual technical innovations, which can also be important for consumers and where repair is perhaps not so easy, are not automatically excluded. We therefore need a single market for consumers that balances innovation and repair. And I believe that today we are drilling in the right place with our question. And that is why we are waiting for what the European Commission will propose to us.