What Marian-Jean spoke about.

Mr President, this Commission proposal is extremely important because it will have a particular impact on industry, but also on society. A wrong approach in this proposal would have led to extremely negative consequences, first of all for the automotive industry, but also for the industry in general, because transport is important for everyone, and for society. I believe that the outcome of the negotiations is a good, balanced result, it has advantages for everyone: the administration can prepare itself, the citizens, I hope, will be able to buy a car, the industry does not spend much money, emissions fall, so everything is, I think, towards a good result. I thank the rapporteur for having taken up the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism in the final text.

Mr President, I believe that the opinion in the Committee on Transport strikes a balance between the need to reduce emissions and the need to ensure the competitiveness of European industry, ensuring, of course, jobs and, at the same time, access to mobility for consumers. I think we need to keep this balance in mind, because both requirements, needs, are important to an absolutely equal extent. The result in the Committee on the Environment reflects a lot the result in the Committee on Transport and I appreciate what the rapporteur has done in the ENVI Committee, and I believe that this result can be improved through plenary amendments, especially with regard to CO2-neutral fuels. I believe that in this way we can even reduce emissions, because we can ensure that the cars that are now on European roads reduce emissions. So I support the outcome of ENVI and at the same time part of the plenary amendments.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your presentation. Yes, it is an extremely complicated and important subject. It is also a consequence of the Mobility Package voted under rather, let's say, controversial conditions in Parliament, not respecting some rules. That mobility package brought problems for the sector, because it introduced the famous provision for the return of the truck home, plus cabotage rules, and at the same time introduced the obligation to have rest time not in the cabin, but in the hotel. It is true that rules for parking were introduced at the time, but the consequences are quite different in reality. First of all, the first two did not cause an improvement in the situation of Western companies, but rather it was seen as a measure of protectionism for Western states, and of course the amount of emissions increased, because to take a truck home every eight weeks, that means a lot of emissions. The second consequence related to rest times is the implementation of this provision very differently in the Member States. There are companies that suffer serious consequences, with very high fines, different from state to state. Some apply, others do not apply this system. So this whole problem has created big problems for the transport companies and at the same time for the whole sector. I believe that there should be very clear rules that can also determine the possibility of infringement for these parking lots to exist or, until there are parking lots, especially secured ones, not to impose fines, because otherwise it is a different, uneven implementation that greatly affects the sector. Thank you for participating in this debate and I hope that we will soon have some very clear rules.

Mr President, Commissioner, both you and Minister Balaš have said that the external borders of Romania and Bulgaria are secure. Thank you also for the commitment you have made here that you will solve this problem, correct this wrong decision in the course of 2023. I've been hearing these things for a long time. I wish you every success in your discussions with the Netherlands and Austria. Until then, however, the negative consequences, especially the economic ones, will continue. You also said that abolishing internal borders would strengthen external borders, because workers would be transferred to those borders. Therefore, I ask you what is your opinion if Romania and Bulgaria would create a smaller area of free movement, not Schengen, Vidin-Calafat or Giurgiu-Ruse?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Space Agency estimates the existence in space of approximately one million pieces of waste larger than one centimetre. This means that 2,700 functional satellites share orbits with 8,800 tons of space debris. The risk of operational satellites being destroyed by collision with drifting debris is very high. In April this year, a correction of the orbit of Copernicus' Sentinel 1A satellite was needed to avoid collision with a fragment of a rocket launched 30 years ago. Space traffic management is urgently needed to secure the European infrastructure launched into space and to continue to benefit from the services of the Union space programmes. The space orbits we can use are a finite resource. We have to keep in mind that there has been an unprecedented increase in space traffic over the last 10 years. We have many more constellations. We have more space actors. To develop new space programmes, a sustainable approach is needed, and space traffic management is one of the necessary tools. We welcome the Commission's initiative on STM and the set of actions proposed, but we see it as only a first step. Given the importance of STM for the Union’s space policy, we call on the Commission to bring forward the related legislation by the end of 2023, including system governance, responsibilities, the necessary set of rules and standards. And, equally importantly, a budget for the STM is needed. Without a budget of its own, space traffic management will remain just a concept. I am pleased that the motion is on the agenda of the plenary of the European Parliament, just as EU Space Week is taking place in Prague. I invite you to vote in favour of this motion in order to convey to the Commission that the European Parliament supports the Union's space policy, but calls for swift and concrete action.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, technological progress in the aviation industry has been remarkable over the last 20 years. Engines reduced emissions by more than thirty percent. It is true that emissions have increased because traffic has increased, because EU citizens have travelled. And there's Schengen now, there's low-cost, that's why. Technological progress will continue in Clean Sky, but at the same time the only possibility to reduce emissions at this time is alternative fuel. And I think we need to use all the technical means to have alternative fuels. And the definition that is now being proposed I think is a good definition that respects all legislation, including LULUCF, so there are no problems with this definition. The targets for e-Fuels are much higher than those proposed by the Commission. We need to be realistic and know exactly what can be produced in the Union and at the same time know that the price of this fuel is 10 times higher than that of kerosene. We support the targets proposed by the Commission. Inclusion, application of this Regulation to all airports without a system Book and Claim it will be impossible, because you cannot apply the regulation at 800 airports without having a system that facilitates the market entry of alternative fuels. The Aviation Fund is needed because there is a need for investment in this industry.

Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for your intervention and, of course, that of the Council. The interconnection of national networks, transport, energy, digital and the integration of European networks is a strategic priority. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has shown that better interconnection of energy and transport networks would have reduced energy and even food insecurity. In the current geopolitical situation, the Three Seas Initiative is taking on an increasingly important role. North-South connection is extremely necessary, important strategic projects in the context of the current crisis: BRUA, Rail, 2-C, Via Carpatia, the terminals for ENGIE or the completion of the TEN-T network are included on the cooperation agenda between the 12 Member States and we must also welcome that in Riga, Ukraine was invited to participate in this initiative. In order for European funds, from the Union Connecting Facility, but also for cohesion funds to contribute to the interconnection of networks, cooperation between Member States is vital. These projects need to be completed as quickly as possible. I call on the Commission to analyse and act swiftly in order to avoid potential bottlenecks caused by bureaucratic issues, especially in projects cross-border, to use flexibility with regard to project pre-financing, technical assistance or other specific requests by Member States. I also call on the Commission to explore the possibility of proposing an amendment to SEF 2 that includes the financing of solidarity lines absolutely necessary for the transport of agricultural products from Ukraine.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is good to be ambitious in life, but you must always look at reality. The European Commission says that by 2030, 30% of the energy needed in the European Union will be produced by gas and nuclear, plus 4% of solid fuels. Energy will increase in the image of the Commission by 10%. I think it's going to increase the energy needs, it's going to increase a lot more. Without nuclear power and gas, this cannot be achieved. Even 55% emission reduction cannot be achieved if we do not use gas and nuclear energy. In my opinion, the use of the war in Ukraine and the alleged absence of LNG in this delegated act are false arguments. You cannot use statements of Russian officials during the war. You cannot use the war in Ukraine to create emotion and to make arguments in favour of the objection. They're two completely different things. The LNG of course is there, because it's gas. So, folks, we've already voted on a taxonomy, we have to vote on that, too.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, Fit for 55 has already been published and will have an extremely important impact on society, the economy, citizens, trade, international balance after adoption. The balance between two needs must be ensured, reducing emissions and ensuring economic competitiveness and thus jobs. Reducing emissions is not achieved with ambitions, it is ensured with innovation, with new technologies. Jobs, economic competitiveness is not ensured with targets, slogans, or Facebook, it is ensured with measures adapted to the economic reality and the global context. In the absence of similar measures at global level, the Union's competitiveness will suffer. Fit for 55 provisions have already caused and will inevitably cause cost increases, prices. I do not think anyone is prepared to bear these increases, neither the MEP, nor the citizen from the East, or from the West, from the North, or from the South. The results of the votes in the TRAN, ENVI, ITRE committees showed that there are different opinions and different majorities. There are many situations where the result is diametrically opposite. Colleagues, the 55% target must be met. However, there are different paths. My request is that you analyse all the variants proposed in the plenary amendments and vote on provisions based on the reality of the economy and society.

Mr President, European transport is still struggling with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, is struggling to cope with the pressure of the changes demanded by it and, at the same time, has to cope with the consequences of the sanctions against Russia, which, in the fifth package, significantly target air and maritime transport. We need to act quickly to support transport, both to keep mobility in the Union and the economy functioning normally, and to be able to continue to help Ukraine. I hope that this war will end with Ukraine's victory and acceptance of the new reality. Russia can no longer be accepted as a partner of the Union in any field. The Commission needs to reconfigure the programmes so as to improve the connection with Eastern Europe. It must extend the TEN-T network to the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia and redesign the transport maps to Eastern Europe. The EIB must propose an investment programme for Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. We need to increase the budget allocated to military mobility, through the Connecting Europe Facility, a budget drastically reduced by the Council and which is now proving to be a big mistake. The funds from Pillar II of the FRR, which are not currently used, can be used.

Mr President, Commissioner, mobility is a necessity, not a luxury. After all, mobility is a right. The freedom of movement of persons, goods and services in the Union cannot be implemented without mobility. Reducing emissions is also a necessity, so in the end we need to find a balance between these things that we need to apply at the same time and with efficiency. The package proposed by the Commission, the package Fit for 55, It will cause a lot of problems in transportation. In my opinion, it will accelerate this transport poverty, because it will create the possibility of raising costs; and in maritime transport, and in road, and in aviation, there are several taxes, after all, introduced, fuel tax, tax on emissions created, plus higher prices for fuel or alternative fuels. I believe that the measures we take must not create a problem that we then try to solve with help, of course, from the budget of the state or states or the Union. I believe that measures must ensure mobility and, at the same time, reduce emissions. I think the ETS without an alternative is just a tax. I believe that the ETS must apply where an alternative is available and affordable, and I believe that when we apply the ETS, the money we collect from the ETS, the funds must go back to the industry to create that alternative. I hope that together, in Parliament and in the Council, we will solve this extremely important problem, both for the citizens and for the economy.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your presentation. It is very good that in 2020, for the first time, renewable energy exceeded energy produced from fossil fuels. But I think 2020 is not a reference year, it is a year of pandemic and anyway consumption has been somehow disrupted. At the same time, in 2021 we do not yet know where we stand with this comparison, but we do know that prices have increased and you say that they have increased because of dependence on fossil fuel, which in 2020 was used less. I think there's a contradiction here. Published, package presented Fit for 55, an extremely important package for everyone, all of Europe. There it is obvious that a lot of energy is needed, so this package will cause a very high demand for energy. Thank you for the answer you gave me, regarding the amount of energy in 2030, if this package is to be implemented. It is not very clear why this increase of only 10% compared to 2020 consumption; In my opinion, this growth is small. At the same time, you say that renewable energy will be 65%, in 2020 there was 22%, three times the increase, and I would like to see nuclear energy and gas in the upcoming delegated act for the taxonomy.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the best social protection can be provided by a viable, economically strong company. I believe that companies in this industry must be supported, but not only those who fly, airlines, but also traffic services companies and airports. This is the only way out of this crisis and, at the same time, for the Commission to ensure that this aid does not influence fair competition. Traffic has started to recover, we have reached two thirds, but you must keep in mind that, in addition to the Covid-19 crisis, these companies are also going through a complicated period due to the Green Deal. There are voices who say we need to close flights, ban flights, and at the same time raise prices, but at the same time they say we need to protect workers. I believe that banning flights and protecting workers cannot be together in any way. So I believe that mobility is a right of the European citizen and this mobility must be ensured by all means of transport. The best solution for aviation is to have research, development and to reach sustainable transport, and I am sorry that there is double discourse. We want environmental sustainability but, at the same time, we don't want to give more money to Clean Sky. The only group that supported the budget increase at Clean Sky was the EPP Group. I believe that there is still something that can be done in this regard, and that, as regards employment relations, it should be in accordance with the laws of each Member State.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that today we have come to vote on this regulation. I think it is very important, in my opinion, that the regulation ultimately sets out the Union's transport policy in addition, of course, to the digital and energy chapters. It is the second regulation in this regard. I want to remind you that in 2011, the Commission proposed €50 billion for this Connecting Europe Facility. We still haven't had $50 billion. Now we only have 33 billion, so if in 2011 the Commission considered that 50 billion was needed, you realize that now this money, this budget, is not enough. Hopefully it will be spent efficiently. We have a slogan, ‘Shift2Rail’, which we want to achieve by 2030. I believe that if we want to achieve it, we must have a ‘rail’, we must have a railway, and at this point, in my opinion, there is no railway in the European Union, no railway system at the level required for the transfer from the road and from the road and from the air to the railway. The Member States, as you can see in the budget, have, in my opinion, a parallel discourse. It wants to decarbonise, but at the same time it does not want to provide the necessary budget for this. I remind you that without the budget, without money, without investments from other European funds, we will not reach this target in 2030. On the other hand, I believe that, in addition to the efficient spending of money, there is also a need for European governance in this system, in this mode of transport. We need standardisation, we need interoperability and it has been seen that in the way the railway is managed at the moment, this situation cannot be reached by rail. We want night trains, but you have to change the locomotive, change the conductors, you don't have harmonised regulations between Member States. So it has to be done a lot. So I advocate for a European government to be able to harmonize, firstly, all the rules of this mode of transport and, secondly, to direct investments where they are needed. And that is what I expect from the Commission. We have submitted a pilot project on this. I do not know if I have the right answer from the Commission. It seems no, but I repeat, if we want to implement the slogans that we have, we need to have management at European level. The EPP Group will vote in favour of this Regulation. I thank my colleagues in Parliament, the shadow rapporteurs, for their support. Thank you, of course, to the co-rapporteurs, for being a very united team, and thank you also to the European Commission for helping in some situations very much.