What Christian spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner! With STEP, the Commission dares to square the circle. In a correct way, the proposal aims to promote the production of strategic technologies and their supply chains in Europe. At the same time, however, three different and competing objectives are to be met: firstly, the production of the necessary technologies to achieve the 2030 and 2050 climate targets, rightly so; secondly, increasing Europe’s sovereignty vis-à-vis the rest of the world – certainly important – but also, thirdly, strengthening cohesion between EU Member States. Unfortunately, this triad has resulted in a not entirely unproblematic proposal in terms of content. As much as I welcome innovation policy, the impression remains that the proposal was knitted with the hot needle. We must finally harmonise in some way the many different innovation and industrial policy efforts. We have therefore, together with the colleagues from the Committee on Budgets - and I would like to express my thanks for the cooperation also within Parliament and with the co-rapporteur - not only simply improved this proposal – this is, first of all, a claim that Parliaments are happy to make – but we have, for the first time, as it were, this regulation with the other industrial policy initiatives such as the Net-Zero Industry Act and the Critical Raw Materials Act made so congruent that they can finance and complement each other. This report is now, for the first time, voluntarily or involuntarily creating an industrial policy and innovation policy package of regulation and related financing to provide European companies with a structured response to the challenges of our time, such as: Inflation Reduction Act, the coronavirus crisis or the energy crisis triggered by Russia. In this respect, the discussion and the entry into the direction of a sovereignty fund are correct. The question is only: In which direction are we going? I would like to emphasise in particular, as rapporteur, that: Horizon Europe and our important amendments to the EIC to ensure better functioning and simpler procedures for companies in the funding process. Dear colleagues! However, the issue of cohesion in this regulation remains problematic: New funding for the Innovation Fund with the net contributors, but the use exclusively by the Member States with a GDP per capita below the EU average, i.e. for example the fact that the proposal forbids – and is also supported by a majority of the Parliament – the use of these funds, and specifically the use of cohesion funds, which Member States already have, for the Member States with a GDP per capita above the EU average for industry, is downright nonsensical. As if the Commission had never heard of horizontal value chains. We have many technologies that have their starting point industrially in the Member States with a GDP per capita above the EU average and where the sub-suppliers and the value chain are then in the Member States with a GDP per capita below the EU average. In this respect, with this discussion we are offering a pointless discussion here in Parliament about distribution, where it is simply a question of denying the one what the others in the value chain need as an impetus. This is also a dangerous discussion in so far as we are giving the Council, so to speak, the reason why it can simply reject the Sovereignty Fund and STEP. Germany and France have already explained this, but I also say clearly in the direction of the Council: You can't steal so cheaply. Because we now have to consider how we want to implement the 2030 targets and whether we have meaningful investment instruments. So summarized in this respect: I think the report is much better. I believe that now the Commission has, has Europe – or would have – a package of several industrial and innovation policy approaches, where we are taking a first step in the direction, towards implementation, towards a response to the IRA and towards a signal to the markets. Once again, I expressly ask that the report be supported, that it not be divided against the background of the cohesion issue, which I believe is unfortunate in this case, and that it be argued together that the appropriate resources are made available for the implementation of important policies.

Mr President, Mrs Limmer! I'd like to know who silenced you? You are speaking in front of the plenary. They contaminate social media channels. They are public everywhere. Who for God's sake silenced you? Perhaps it is simply because the intolerability of majority decisions in democracy is an imposition on you. No one here has silenced you. This discussion, which is being held on the left, IP rights It is on the right hand side of the earth, and it is on the right hand side of the earth. We are before Galileo, we do not recognize that vaccines saved millions of people in the 20th century and in the 21st century. Where did we actually get there? But I would like to say: Without intellectual property rights, we would not have had an mRNA, we would not have had an active substance. We couldn't have shared that with other production sites. We would not have had 750% capacity building in these areas within a year. mRNA took years to develop. In this respect, it fills me with deep distrust in this Chamber that there are amendments to the report, which already goes relatively far, which goes far beyond. If we don't defend intellectual property rights, we will discourage scientists. We are pretending that this is a debate on capitalism. Science, freedom of intellectual property, innovation are being ruined by the fact that we are now trying to socialize the pharmaceutical industry, so to speak. And that's unbearable.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! The Industrial Emissions Directive, as it existed before the revision, successfully contributed to the reduction of emissions in Europe. Basically, it is also a modern instrument, because it has a mechanism where industry, NGOs, the public sector discuss for years how to achieve technological progress. But in this case, we are completely beyond the scope. This will contribute to the deindustrialisation of Europe. It is super bureaucratic, there are huge requirements for the industry, no gram of pollutant will be reduced. It is a huge burden-, control- and documentation system for an industry, which we have already burdened with documentation obligations, with bureaucratic effort. So we have to think very carefully about what we want. There is a saying in German, that is: Many dogs are the rabbit's death. I don't think it's about asking the question of reducing emissions in industry, it's about the way. It's exuberant, it's overbureaucratic, it's mainly about documentation, and that won't help the industry in Europe or the climate.

Madam President, dear colleagues, every day, every week counts for Ukraine, desperately fighting against the Russian invasion. Supplying ammunition to Ukraine is urgent. We should therefore also deal with the proposal to ramp up industrial production of ammunition urgently. Therefore, the EPP Group requests and supports an urgent procedure along Rule 163 here in Parliament. ASAP – the name of the Act brought forward by the Commission, the Act in Support of Ammunition Production – is a well-chosen acronym. I think we have to ramp up European production of the ammunition that is urgently needed in support of Ukraine in the war launched by Russia, but also for Europe itself. In that sense, the suggested EUR 500 million support for short-term ammunition production via ASAP is welcome in the EPP. We strongly support this effort. The EU Member States and NATO partners have shown a great willingness to stand by Ukraine in the war, and have – individually and together – donated and financed an impressive amount of defence equipment. But we need more cooperation in Europe. We all understand that supporting Ukraine right now is also ensuring our own security in the long term. ASAP is timely, it is needed and it should be pointing to the future common EU defence efforts. Not all elements are to our unconditional liking, but let us begin to work. Ukraine needs it. We need it for our future.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, as soon as possible, ASAP, I think the acronym is well chosen. The need for ammunition, but also the need for production in Europe for ammunition is urgent. In that sense, the suggested EUR 500 million support for the short-term ammunition production via ASAP is welcome. As the EPP, we strongly support this effort and we salute your personal effort not just to ask for another programme but also to answer the questions of where to produce, how to produce and what is our relationship to the industry. EU Member States and NATO partners have shown a great willingness to stand by Ukraine in the war and have individually and together donated and financed an impressive amount of defence equipment. We all understand that supporting Ukraine right is also securing our own security in the long term. Looking forward, this proposal cannot be the last effort to strengthen our common European defence effort. If we want, for the future, a strong European defence technological and industrial base, and we do, the EU Member States have to put their money where the mouth is. I would therefore expect that the same willingness that is shown to invest in defence by the Member States right now would be fully reflected in the upcoming European defence investment programme. Give fresh money – no more tricks of cannibalising existing EU programs. I think, to round it up, ASAP is timely, and that’s the reason why my group had been suggesting today and we are going to vote for that for more for an urgent procedure. I think that’s a political matter; not to have an urgent procedure, not to act quick could be even counterproductive. It’s not a technical or a political or institutional question, it’s a very political question that we act quickly. So we salute that. And we hope that our colleagues and the plenary is going to support that fast track procedure, which puts also a certain urgency on the Council.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if you are going to look back on that decade, we will learn that this year will be decisive for the future of Europe in terms of competitiveness, in terms of transformation of our societies, in terms of technology, in terms of our ambition of the transformation of our societies towards the CO2-free world. And we are going to see that we don’t understand a lesson we tell children in school. The lesson is no arms, no cookies. We have been negotiating the Chips Act tonight. The result was a shame for Europe because we are investing on chips, but we take it away from other priorities like cybersecurity. We trade our future against our security. We have a net-zero act which is hardly financed. The Americans have been spending 200 billion on the Inflation Reduction Act in the recent months – we are not even talking about years. So we have to learn that this is a decisive time, and that is a time where we need to invest because that is the only way to trigger private investment.

Mr President! My question remains very close to the topic because it is the same question. The Energy Agency has attested to a gap of 57 trillion cubic meters. We closed this last year with Russian natural gas and LNG. It was explained that LNG was available on the market because China did not buy this gas on these scales due to the COVID measures. The Chinese have stated that they will massively increase shopping this year; Russian gas will not be available. Where will we get the gas?

Mr President, Commissioner, let us be a little more specific. The International Energy Agency has published a study that this summer, and at the latest this autumn, we will have a huge problem in replenishing gas stocks in Europe, unlike last year, where we have still done it via Russian natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Energy Agency has made concrete proposals here. In this respect, my question is now very specific, and I know that this also applies to the Member States. We have heard on the proposals that we need more energy infrastructure – a deepening; However, we have seen that there is not a single transnational infrastructure in the resilience fund of the large EU programme. The second topic is: We bought LNG on the market, which China did not consume last year, but is likely to consume this year. And the third: We do not have access to Russian natural gas. So the question is, so to speak: How exactly do we want to replenish the storage facilities in Europe over the summer to autumn? One last question: They were referring to energy efficiency. Member States have not agreed to the binding energy efficiency target. In this respect, the topic will not be available to us in the summer.

Madam President, dear colleagues, today we are discussing legislation that can enhance the European data-driven economy and enable new business models for industry. Enabling secure, efficient data sharing among businesses can have a profound impact on the economy, leading to more innovation, growth and job creation. It will provide businesses with the right incentives and support to innovate, develop new products and services based on data and, by doing so, it can create new opportunities for business across Europe, driving growth and creating jobs. And I would like to congratulate – because we don’t do that often in this House – the Commission, and specifically Commissioner Breton, but also our rapporteur, Pilar del Castillo, and also the other colleagues. Because we do something, we salute much more – and we should do that in the presence of many more colleagues. We do something for the competitiveness of Europe. And that’s the bigger issue. We should be aware that, in the presence of this House, it is much more vivid. If we strangle the European industry, if we regulate, if we create ambitions which are not fostering European competitiveness – and it’s a relatively lonely business or it seems to be – then we are saluting the fact that now we are really substantially contributing to European competitiveness. But we should be aware: it is starting. We are starting to deindustrialise Europe. And what had been promised for the Green Deal has to become a Green Deal, whereas the second leg – the digital leg – is the one we are saluting today. And it’s a good signal and a good day for the European industry.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in 2020, the Commission proudly announced a new industrial policy to implement the European Green Deal as a growth strategy. Yet it took a loud bang from the US to wake up the von der Leyen Commission. Three years later, they finally woke up to the fact that simply placing Fit for 55 regulation is not enough. We need a business case for the European industry that the industrial transition will be a success. The EPP Group welcomes, therefore, the Green Deal Industrial plan, but the EPP Group really wants to make sure that the von der Leyen Commission hears this final warning shot loud and clear. So far, the Commission approach has to be too prescriptive, too ideological, and too much focused on regulating the demand side of the European market. Technology neutrality was an afterthought rather than a leading principle. What we need is a serious effort to create a regulatory framework that gives our industry certainty and freedom to innovate and invest. This requires simple, fast, predictable decisions on state aid and permitting, for example, and domestic sourcing of raw materials. Productivity is our industry’s competitive advantage, not even mentioned in the statement from the Commission. Our social and energy costs are among the highest in the world, but so is also the quality of our scientists and engineers. We need to address these high costs, but most importantly, we need to unleash the potential of our innovation—driven productivity growth. To ensure our competitiveness on the global market we also need an ambitious free trade agenda, and yes, we want to ratify the pending trade agreements. If the von der Leyen Commission realises what needs to happen, the European economy can thrive and provide quality jobs for our citizens also in the future. And only if our economy thrives, the European Green Deal can be a success.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, when he presented the Green Deal in this House back in 2019, Vice-President Timmermans said that the fundamental question before us was whether we would be masters of the momentous change ongoing in our industry or we would be subject to what others decide. Through the Green Deal we are supposed to be masters, and the American Inflation Reduction Act showed us that the Green Deal did not us masters. We became subjects to what others decide. The Green Deal was supposed to be the growth strategy and was supposed to support our business to become world leaders in clean technology. But it never delivered on that. It delivered the ‘Fit for 55’ regulatory framework, which forces the European economy through a massive transformation. But it did not deliver the business case for that transformation. Yesterday, finally, the Green Deal industrial plan was announced, a plan that finally considers how to ensure there is a business case for the transition in Europe. We should not fear the Inflation Reduction Act. It shows us simply that the Americans incentivise this transformation and we regulate. And we need breathing space for our industry. We need deregulation. We need not additional burden. We have to reduce and to focus on what we want to achieve on 55 and not to add burden to the industry. That’s what industry want. Not simply much more money. The end of this regulatory nightmare in this Parliament.

(start of speech off mic) ... the Inflation Reduction Act is a systematic challenge for the Green Deal. It’s an alternative to the Green Deal because we never delivered on the deal part of the Green Deal. We are regulating our industry. We are co-creating the regulation. This House is part of that exercise, but we are not investing to ensure in the business case for the transition. That’s what the Inflation Reduction Act is doing. The Inflation Reduction Act creates a business case for a sustainable transition. It offers an industry a deal, and our only possible reaction to it is to become furious about the deal part of the Green Deal. Madam Commissioner, we thought you to be too intelligent to announce yet another fund. I think we have to have a better understanding of the complex transnational, sectoral ecosystems of the industry affected by the Inflation Reduction Act. We need to step up investment in innovation and develop real transition pathways for our industries. We need to mobilise all unspent cohesion funds from the previous MFF to invest in our industrial transition. We need to invest more in energy and mobility infrastructure and deepen our European market. We have to care about the deal and not steer towards America. Let’s get serious about the deal part of the Green Deal.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Innovation Council (EIC) is a centrepiece of the European innovation policy. It’s a new instrument that was set up to do things differently. An essential part of the Green Deal, the industry’s policy strategy of the EU, Europe’s innovation agenda, it was most likely the most valuable contribution to the new Horizon Europe programme. A one-stop agency where innovators could ask for support through grants as well as equity. The EIC had a great start during its pilot under Horizon 2020. It was a popular instrument with a growing reputation in the venture capital market and I am talking not about a small instrument, it is the biggest public instrument in Europe in the venture capital market for deep technology. That is how it was supposed to continue on the rise in Europe as well but it ran into a wall of a settled bureaucracy inside the European Commission because this new approach to support innovators was pushing the boundaries of the budget implementation as traditionally done by DG BUDG. This fight or fear about loss of reputation led to a yearlong or more than yearlong fight between three DGs. Personally, I don’t think it reached even the political level, but it blocked the biggest innovation programme for more than a thousand start-up deep-tech companies – we selected more than hundreds – which had been waiting more than a year for the money which had been dedicated to them originally. And so the programme is no longer a question of the reputational risk. Who is going to manage that? The Commission itself, the EIB, not known as a racing horse in the capital market if I may say. The question is no longer about reputational risk, it is about reputational damage for the Union. It had been blocked. We lost the confidence of start-ups in Europe that we would have that interesting instrument, that challenges-addressing instrument. We need, and Parliament needed, to step in through that. The whole thing is a disgrace. In the public sector, someone would have to resign. If your proceeding of a billion budget and you’re not able to allocate that budget in the private sector, you would have to resign. We needed, as a Parliament, to publicly call out the problems created by the Commission. We needed to publicly set out a positive agenda for the EIC and we did; through great collaboration between all political groups, we quickly developed a shared vision of the future of the EIC as co-legislator. We delivered a list of recommendations for the Commission that would restore the transformative nature and ambition of the EIC. A key recommendation is that the implementation of both the equity and the grant components are under full control of the Commission. This ensures that our start-ups really experience EIC as a one-stop shop. It also ensures that investment decisions are informed by the strategic interest by the Union. To deliver on strategic interests of the Union, the EIC also needs to be able to be an investor on its own. It needs to be able to be a sole investor, to take the lead in an investment around and to take a major share in a company. It is the only way we can fix the market failure of the European VC capital market where we don’t have the needed investment in deep-tech technology. And the EIC needs to deliver investment decisions in line with industry standards. Deep-tech start-ups cannot wait months and months for European institutional machinery and we need the money now for the sector. We also made some recommendations to address some challenges in this programme. Europe has a major issue with the underrepresentation of women in this sector. This is costing us billions of euros each year and the rise of it deprives us of great innovations that could have been done. We still have an innovation divide on our continent. This is reflected in the low participation in successful start-ups from some European regions. To sum it up, we appeal to the Commission now to act. This is one of the valuable instruments that is needed for us to reach the 2030 goals because we need innovation, we need creative start-ups. So I appeal to the Commission to come to terms and let this common undertaking run.

Madam President, Let’s be realistic. I mean, what the Council has been suggesting is that no less than 40% of all the suggested cuts fall on Horizon Europe. So 40% is on innovation – the innovation we need for everything we are going to endeavour in the coming years. If you look a little bit closer, it is just 7% of the budget, but you impose 40% of the cuts. I mean, if you give a madman a nail and you puncture the Horizon budget, you come up with your proposal. You cut EUR 180 million off the proposal on Digital Europe. At the same time, you’re selling to the international audience a CHIP programme; you’re selling that. You promised already. You want to have 3.3 billion for that budget, and rightly so. It is one of Europe’s ambitions. But at the same time, you cut the digital budget before we even started the discussion of where and how to finance new ambitions. So, let’s be realistic. Either you say ‘No’ to innovation in Europe, or we should start to negotiate.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! It's a bit shocking: We're rewinding all our old records here. The Commission stresses what it will do, but it has not yet started. The Council stresses what it will do. But he has always, so to speak, relied on Article 122 for the big boys to act – Olaf lends energy to Macron, but the same Macron is then the problem of why there are no pipeline connections from Spain to France, we demand socialism, we demand the energy transition ... I believe that we should really commit ourselves together to the fact that the only solution to these questions is that we need a common Europe. Without a deepened European energy market, none of the proposed solutions will be realistic in any way – neither joint tax collection, nor strengthening supply – because we just know that we need the LNG terminals in Spain to have LNG in Germany, because we know that we need a deepened electricity market. I believe that we should first of all commit ourselves to Europe today. Without Europe, none of our ideas will be achievable. This Europe is the solution, not the problem.

Madam President, perhaps I might express our collective hope that we also get an additional five minutes like the Commission. But anyway, Madam Commissioner, you referred to the gratefulness of the Commission for our report. That’s on the one hand true, but on the other hand, what we are doing with that report is simply your job that you didn’t do. And why so? Because this Parliament is united behind this report, because we had been united behind the Green Deal. And the Green Deal included ‘green’ and the ‘deal’. And how to structure the deal was meant to be done by the industrial policy strategy. And the Commission brought forward a good idea: the ecosystems, a very specific, sector—wise perception of what is needed – technology pathways, the regulatory framework, infrastructure that differs from sector to sector. And you never delivered. The Commission reminds us a little bit like a magician who is pulling one white rabbit out of their hat after the other. But there is no consistency. You regulate, you shoot in a certain direction, you fund and you appeal and whatsoever. But you didn’t deliver on the industrial strategy. We do not have a strategy for technology pathways for the chemical industry. And in the chemical industry you could see you would like to add a REACH. We all know that the framework of the chemical industry, that kills them. That’s totally inconsistent what you’re doing. And we did your job. This is not an additional nice report or whatsoever. We are doing your job. So do your job now, because otherwise the transition won’t work, the Green Deal won’t work, and people do not believe that you have an idea or a plan how it’s going to work.

Mr President, I think my colleagues and I, we listened carefully to the other committees, to the Members and I think a lot has been said. But I would like to appeal yet again and to reiterate, the idea of the Bauhaus. In these harsh times it might be a little bit like something nice to have – to flourish up public space, integrate artists, something like that. For me, the European Bauhaus is the core question of whether the Green Deal is going to work. Because we have to understand – and that’s bitter for the EPP, for example, and our voters – that we might have to change our life to some extent in order to pave the way for the next generation and leave them liveable earth. But so far we have addressed people, citizens, the young generations with regulation, we have said, ‘Don’t do. Don’t consume. Don’t trouble. Do not behave like you had been behaving’. This is not an option. We are living in a complex society and everything we know about psychology – and politics is foremost psychology – is that the acceptance of regulation, not that we press on people, the acceptance of people is related to creativity. That’s the transformative force in our society. And we desperately need the Bauhaus because we regulate but we are lacking a lot of innovation, technology, ideas on the way we live. The figures based on the idea are simple: the creative industry has been filing more patents on innovation than any other sector in Europe – not IT, not cars, not the old industry, it has been the creative industry – so we need that potential. it is not flourishing up something. It has the ability to transform innovation, innovative ideas, regulation, the Green Deal, into something liveable, acceptable and positive for citizens.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! With the Green Deal, the European Union is undertaking arguably the most far-reaching, fundamental transformation of our way of life and society since the existence of the European Union. Currently overshadowed by the terrible war in Ukraine and the resulting crisis in Europe's markets, the Green Deal offers the opportunity to both achieve necessary climate goals and improve the lives of Europeans. The New European Bauhaus movement and initiative proposed by the Commission President as an overarching Green Deal movement and initiative has an essential role to play in this. Required regulations and regulations reinforce the feeling of a dystopian world with ever-faster changing conditions. By uniting science, business with culture and creativity, the New European Bauhaus, on the other hand, creates a utopia for the whole, and in particular for the Green Deal, a positive, real perspective for the people of Europe. And it shows that transformations of existing life forms and living environments can have something positive for citizens. I call on the Member States to take this positive Bauhaus idea even more seriously and invite all citizens to participate. With this own-initiative report, we as Parliament are proactively participating in the Bauhaus movement by presenting our ideas on the future of the New European Bauhaus. The report includes a variety of demands, for example to concretize the Bauhaus criteria and to finance projects that are consistent with the basic ideas of sustainability, aesthetics and inclusion. I would like to express my thanks to the Commissioner for laying the foundations for the Bauhaus with the large programme in the framework programme for research in the creative industries. The Bauhaus is, so to speak, a bit of a superstructure, but the broad reason for the funding for the creative industry is laid down by the Research Framework Programme and by the Commissioner's initiative. However, a profitable concretization would be important for the Bauhaus, for example. We call for a mission within the research framework programme in Horizon Europe, but we also call on all other parts of the Commission to make their contribution. This is not just a funding issue. We need a budget, but we also need an inclusive share of the Member States, which means that the Structural Funds must be used for this purpose. This means that, to a much greater extent, both the Commission and the Member States are embracing the European Bauhaus theme in other funds, such as the Structural Funds. We want to focus, we want to give the whole thing an institutional framework. We should also think about creating a New European Bauhaus label for projects and buildings. Such a label should also be attractive to the private sector; You can imagine a franchise system. Of course, if the private sector adopts the criteria of the European Bauhaus, we have much greater leverage than if it were only through public funds. It is now up to the Commission to accept our demands and to initiate the right framework conditions for an active change in our lives towards a positive future with the help of the New European Bauhaus. Parliament will continue to participate in this discussion and we want to make our contribution. But I say it again explicitly: It is not about institutions praising the Bauhaus and then shifting responsibility to the other institution. This is an elementary element of the Green Deal. We need to give people utopias instead of dystopias. If we can achieve this, then we have achieved something together, so to speak, which is basically the initial spark for the Green Deal beyond the technicality of what parliaments, what the Commission, what the Member States can create as a framework. I would like to express my sincere thanks to my co-rapporteur, Mr Ros Sempere, and to all the staff who have actively supported us in drawing up the report. It was an exemplary cooperation between two committees, which usually have nothing to do with each other at first, but it was an excellent cooperation between the ITRE and CULT committees.

Madam President, Three things are important for the EPP. Firstly: Only a real and binding reduction in consumption would allow us to get through the winter and reduce dependence on Russia. Secondly, and quite realistically, any intervention must be assessed in terms of the advantages and disadvantages and their possible consequences. Interventions in the pricing mechanism must never lead to higher consumption of gas – as can be seen in the example of Spain or in our large competitor in Asia, where large economies have undertaken these interventions, which are now leading to increased demand for gas on the markets. Thirdly: We need to deepen the European single market. It cannot be that the infrastructure is priced into the high gas prices. We have the problem that we lack infrastructure – between the Iberian Peninsula and France in Europe. We have a decoupling of energy prices in Eastern Europe, because the connection of infrastructures to Western Europe is not available. And I believe that before we operate on prices, we need to set the signals that we can set: investment in infrastructure. The InvestEU programme must have a much stronger focus on large investments. If we were to use InvestEU to show that we are willing to build interconnectors, drive gas and hydrogen infrastructure, then we are setting price signals. And we have to be very careful whether rash interventions do not lead to an increase in consumption, and then internationally we compete with Asia and with countries that conclude longer-term gas contracts – 20 years. And if this cycle continues, that we create more demand through price interventions, then Europe will not be the winner with a short-term gas perspective. So be careful and take a close look at what we want.

Mr President, Commissioner! Good legislation is not only ambition, and I believe that it was important for the EPP to establish a truly ambitious, but also realistic and feasible energy performance target in the negotiations. I believe that the directive now allows Member States to minimise the administrative burden. I believe that, importantly, we have also been able to integrate other principles such as cost efficiency, system efficiency and security of supply. It was pointless to include storage in the Energy Efficiency Directive. It requires the ramp-up of electrification, and I believe that we have simply moved a lot forward in this directive. It is important that we have ensured that when applying the energy efficiency principle, Member States have taken into account the whole life cycle and foreseeable developments, systems and cost-efficiency and security of supply. We are not entirely happy with the compromise on a mandatory 3% renovation rate for public buildings, as we are thus anticipating the Buildings Directive. We must not lose sight of the current cost pressure on municipalities. But we support this ambitious step.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Green Minister of Economics and Energy, Robert Habeck, placed on Saturday a press release on the taxonomy, and he was deliberately quiet on gas. And I do not use that triumphantly. It’s simply ‘welcome to reality’. We know that for a transitional time we need gas and nuclear in order not to destabilise the grid, to lead the pathway to renewable energy in 2030 and 2050. And the taxonomy simply reflects the fact that this is used as a transitional pathway, a sustainable energy source. It is therefore right that the complementary delegated act and the taxonomy presented by the Commission defines electricity and heat generation with gas as energy sources as a sustainable transition technology. It’s based on extremely strict cumulative criteria, which must be also verified by an independent third party. And in reality it will address a very few investments to stabilise the grid, reserve plants. But this is not a renewal of gas. Any prospection of gas is not the future, we all know. But we know that we need these transition pathways, and we all know that we need investment in transition pathways. And for that reason, I think it was a wise decision to stay with the delegated act.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! I think we need to move a little bit out of these ideological positions. European industry has long been on the path to decarbonisation. It also makes no sense to raise such a myth here that there are citizens or a young generation who are against industry, against the economy. Our citizens want both. They want change, so to speak, but they are also workers. They want social prosperity. They have a house, they are considering how to finance a heat pump, which Mr Timmermanns mentioned. And on the other hand, we must be aware that the next years 22/23 are the decisive years for investment. This does not happen over eight years, but over the next two years. And we do it under conditions, there is war in Europe. We have difficult conditions. We still do not have a deepened European internal market in terms of energy. We need to be aware that bridge technologies and technological flexibility are the answers. And we shouldn't make ourselves worse than we are. The Commission has put forward a proposal. I think it's a good suggestion, we share the ambitions. But, of course, we need to be aware that we also need to find ways to do so. And in this respect, I believe that what has been proposed and what has been discussed in the Industry Committee and what has, interestingly enough, found majorities across parties there, is the right way forward. Flexibility, openness to technology, rewarding, so to speak, those who First Runner Consider whether the foreign trade policy instruments work, and if they don't work, also have answers and don't just plunge into something that won't find a solution for industry, so to speak. And so we need the compromises. We are on the right track. But we must have a realistic view and not move into ideological disputes.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, colleagues, I think we all welcome the dedication of the Commissioner for global research cooperation, in particular, her realistic approach to it. And we should all understand, if we have two strengths in Europe’s it’s the economy and its innovation, our innovation capacity, and that is an issue we have to work on and we have to use for our global ambitions. But I would like to address two issues in this context. First of all, academic freedom. In the communications, you say that to promote academic freedom is our issue globally. However, how can we promote our academic global freedom globally if the EU is not capable of protecting it at home? Europe does not have the legal means to protect academic freedom effectively. The European Court had to rely on WTO regulations to declare Hungary’s law against the Central European University illegal. That’s not enough. If we take academic freedom serious, we need to do more. However, our services seem to be under the impression that European legal protection is impossible. However, I think that if we want to keep our plausibility in our international agenda, we have to have more competences on that issue. And the reason that we wouldn’t have competences under education is just an excuse clause. However, academic freedom is also a research policy issue, and there we can act. So my question is, would you, if the Parliament would bring forward a proposal to protect academic freedom in Europe, support it by tabling or taking up a legislative proposal during your term in office? The second issue, just briefly, is the question of control. I mean, the science collaboration, particularly the Horizon association, is deeply political and we have seen this in relation to the UK and Swiss participation of Horizon. And my question is what and how do you and the Council react to our ambitions and pleas that Parliament be more integrated in these negotiations? Our request has been met with silence and rejection so far and in the resolution tabled in this debate we again invite the Commission and the Council to table to find the right way forward. My second question is thus, will you accept our invitation?

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The ITRE Committee is concerned. This, of course, is the nature of those responsible for budgets within committees. But the research framework programme – which is our fear – is increasingly turning into a quarry of ambitions for everything. I believe that the importance of the research framework programme goes far beyond research and innovation. We need technology, we need innovation to cope with the transformational power for the energy transition, to maintain competitiveness in Europe. And more and more new projects, be it the microchip initiative (welcome) or the satellite theme, are becoming important: the issues of transition in the energy sector. But these are all issues that are not funded. And our concern is that we will continue to become the quarry of ambition. And I would like to make it clear once again: We will insist that, without a commitment to decommit and without a commitment to: upfrontloading or frontloading They cannot refinance such projects. We cannot strike a balance between what we have decided and the ambitions of our future. Either we have more money, or we can't have that ambition.

Mr President, to make the energy transition work for people and business in Europe, we need more European cooperation. Sustainability, security of supply and affordability are the main criteria, and we, the EPP Group, believe in these three aspects, and they are necessary. I think we should highlight that there is a sharpened focus in this regulation on the needed infrastructure to deploy a robust European backbone for the production and transport of renewable and low—carbon hydrogen, that is actually needed to make the shift, the transition, possible. TEN—E is of utmost importance for creating a hydrogen backbone in Europe. We managed to include electrolysers that have at least 50 MW capacity provided by a single electrolyser or by a set of electrolysers that form a single coordinated project. We don’t sing ideology here, we develop the needed infrastructure for what we want to achieve for the 2030 goals. This project will enable a cumulative pathway to the larger—scale projects that we all aspire to develop and need in order to decarbonise our economies. In this regard, it’s also important to mention that we allow transitional for dedicated hydrogen assets converted from natural gas to be used to transport or to store a pre—defined blend of hydrogen with natural gas or biomethane. That is what industry asked us to do in order to make it possible to achieve the 2030 goals. And at last, it’s rather cynical that you are also always referring to the situation in Malta. I think it’s important that Malta is adopted to the grid and it was very impressive that the Caruana Galizia family called on the EU not to fund this gas pipeline project that will link to a power station part—owned by the man on trial for her killing. But it was EPP and us together then lately, asking the Commission to vote for us, before we vote for a statement that no EU funding from CEF will go to this project as long as it is directly or indirectly linked with criminals. They confirmed, and it’s in the text, so that you should acknowledge.