Speeches

– Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this opportunity to give you an update on the implementation of the Global Gateway Strategy. Through Global Gateway and its Team Europe initiatives we aim to address the world’s most pressing challenges: the infrastructure gap; the digital divide; climate change; pandemic recovery; increasing inequalities; and preparation for future health crises. It is our principal means to help our partner countries achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. It is just over a year since Global Gateway was announced. We have used that time to set a solid foundation for the strategy, identifying key actions and establishing governance structures. Now we must use 2023 to deliver progress on the ground. First, we have identified a wide range of global gateway flagship programmes across the world, to deliver real transformation in digital and green transitions, transport, health, education and other key sectors. We will push ahead with all of these in partnership with Member States and the European financing institutions’ Team Europe, focusing and combining our efforts for greater impact. Geopolitically, we have used Global Gateway to boost the EU’s profile with key regions of the world. We have seen the announcement of the EU investment packages at the summits with the African Union in February 2022 and with ASEAN in December. We have had important meetings with partners from the Indo—Pacific, and on connectivity in Central Asia. We will develop another important investment agenda for the EU—CELAC summit in July this year. Second, through the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus, we are mobilising additional funding, including private investors and businesses, acknowledging the private sector’s crucial role in the Global Gateway rollout. We have also made good progress with the governance of the Global Gateway strategy. The first meeting of the Global Gateway Board successfully took place on 11 December under the chairmanship of President von der Leyen. We were pleased that Members of the European Parliament were able to participate as observers, and we are grateful for their very useful contributions. There will be a dedicated business advisory group to allow exchanges with relevant European businesses. In parallel, we will continue to hold dialogues with civil society organisations. This will allow the Board to give strong but realistic strategic guidance on our collective ambitions. Finally, I am pleased that the Global Gateway and Team Europe initiatives are already starting to improve the EU’s and Member States collective visibility, and also their impact. Many EU delegations report increased cooperation with Member States’ embassies on the ground. So what’s next? For this year, it is clear that our focus has to be on implementation of the initiatives and flagships already identified. We and our partners want major transformational impact, and we want it quickly. Team Europe’s focus will be on rapid delivery, and we look for Parliament’s support in this. Coupled with this will be a strong strategic communication effort to demonstrate the real value of Global Gateway to partner countries, businesses, multilateral partners and, of course, to the public of Europe and across the world. Again, the European Parliament has an important role in conveying this positive message. Thank you very much for your interest in this important issue, I’m looking forward to listening to your comments.

– Madam President, thank you very much for your intervention and comments. It was very interesting for me to listen to you all. I took very good note on everything you said. Let me say first a few words on the future perspectives for our small-scale and coastal fishers. Ensuring generational renewal of well-trained fishers is essential and will be one of the key tasks we will need to address jointly in the coming years, and will only succeed if the sector and in particular the general working environment is perceived as attractive, and if hard working conditions and especially safety are improved. Through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and the new European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund we are offering support to improve the working conditions on board, while of course respecting the capacity limits of the vessels and we encourage Member States to use this support. There is also a wide offer available to promote training and skills to enable fishers to fish in a safer environment. This is a very important aspect, especially at the beginning of our European Year of Skills, and can be supported in a very broad context beyond the fisheries funds – I’m thinking in particular of the European Social Fund+, Erasmus+, the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the Just Transition Fund. Honourable Members, small-scale coastal fisheries are part of the backbone of our European fisheries and our coastal communities, and they are a strong part of our cultural identity. Indeed, it is our joint responsibility to make them fit for the future and our common fisheries policies, along with the EU funds available, will continue to support them. Thank you once again for this debate and for your important contribution to our common task.

– Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Pimenta Lopes, and the shadow rapporteurs for this report. The Commission welcomes the European Parliament’s contribution on the important topic of small—scale fisheries in the EU and future perspectives. As you rightly recall in your report, the small—scale and coastal fishing fleet represents nearly 75% of all fishing vessels registered in the EU and nearly half of the employment in the fishing sector. This clearly shows the important socio—economic role of this sector in European coastal communities and the outermost regions. Your report calls for a broader definition of small—scale and coastal fisheries in a horizontal piece of legislation, like the common fisheries policy. Due to the size of the sector, the geographic differences across Europe and differences in the type of fishing conducted, this would be a difficult task. The existing specific references in the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund already facilitate access to EU funding for small—scale fisheries, while the references in the control regulation are specific to control needs. I agree with your draft report that small scale unfortunately often also means small voice in the value chain and in relation to other stakeholders. I also agree that a large part of the solution lies in a better collective organisation of small—scale operators to have a more collective weight and a louder voice. This is why the Commission adopted the rules for the advisory councils in 2022 to ensure more participation of small—scale and coastal fisheries. This is also the reason why the Commission strongly encourages Member States under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, as well as the new European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, to support collective organisation of producers, organisations and fisheries local action groups. I want to underline in this context that Member States have the possibility to provide preferential rates of support under the new EMFAF, and they should use this possibility. Support can also be applied for the installation of storage, freezing and refrigeration infrastructure on small—scale vessels as long as they comply with the conditions for vessel modifications, as defined in the Regulation on the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. However, and here I need to be clear, the Commission cannot agree with establishing new criteria in relation to the fishing capacity. In most Member States, there is available capacity within the capacity ceilings set by the Common Fisheries Policy, and this could very well be used to increase the capacity of vessels in order to improve safety, living and working conditions on board or for more energy efficient propulsion systems. Again, our Fund foresees financial support here. So, the Commission could not agree more with your report that young fishers need to be attracted to this important economic sector and that upgrading skills and training play a crucial role here. In this context, the financial support available must be pointed out again, and I would like to encourage Member States to use it. We have taken careful note also of the other proposals contained in your report to improve the situation of small—scale and coastal fishers who are indeed part of Europe’s fishing and maritime heritage. The Commission will carefully examine them. But my main message today is that the Commission fully supports all initiatives to strengthen the role of small—scale and coastal fishers in parallel to our continuous and joint efforts to further reduce the environmental impact of those fisheries. I thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing your views. I gave you the message of my colleague Commissioner Sinkevičius, of course, but everything you will say will be duly noted, and I will pass your message to him.

– Madam President, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms underpins the strong and strategic partnership the EU has built with Morocco over time and which we are committed to developing even further. The EU and Morocco have put in place a trustworthy and open dialogue. Human rights features regularly on the agenda of our discussions, and we do not shy to express our concerns to the Moroccan partners. In particular, freedom of expression, media freedom and the protection of journalists and human rights defenders are an area where we express concern to our Moroccan partners whenever appropriate. This was also the case most recently during the visit of High Representative Borrell to Rabat on 5 and 6 January, where the point was raised with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bourita. As the High Representative stressed in his press conference, the EU Morocco partnership is based on values. We attach great importance to the protection of fundamental rights, human rights defenders, fundamental rights such as freedom of the press and freedom of expression and we work together with Morocco on this subject. The work of national and international non—governmental organisations remains therefore of critical importance to assess the situation on the ground in these areas. The EU takes good note of the fact that some NGOs continue to report that more needs to be done to create an enabling environment for the full exercise of freedom of expression. We also pay special attention to the need to ensure full respect for due process guaranteed for all. Specific institutional fora are the most appropriate framework to raise in a spirit of constructive criticism and further improvement the situation of human rights in Morocco. We have created, under the framework of the EU Morocco Association Agreement, a Subcommittee on Democracy and Human Rights, which meets regularly. We discuss the principles, but when relevant and useful, we do not refrain from referring to individual cases. This structure complements our continuous engagement, both in Brussels and in Rabat, through our delegation, with civil society organisations, human rights defenders and relevant international actors to promote and consolidate respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Morocco’s membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council in January this year will provide additional opportunities to explore areas of joint cooperation in this field. Let me conclude by reiterating the EU’s commitment, in Morocco as everywhere in the world, to media freedom and the protection of journalists in compliance with international human rights obligations. We will continue our efforts to ensure that all citizens can benefit from the rights guaranteed by their constitution and the full respect and implementation of the laws.

– Madam President, honourable Members, we were all shocked by the violent attacks against the heart of Brazil’s democracy on 8 January. European and world leaders were quick to condemn this unacceptable act of political violence. In a statement on behalf of the 27 Member States, we expressed our solidarity with President Lula and our full support for the democratic institutions of Brazil. Last Tuesday, High Representative Borrell also had the opportunity to speak with Foreign Minister Vieira and to express our support. The EU has reiterated its trust in Brazil’s democracy and in the strengths of its institutions. Our conviction is that they will prevail over violence and extremism. The attack on Brazil’s core institutions did not start last Sunday. Regrettably, it is the outcome of years of political polarisation, attacks against the judiciary, against the free press and against civil society, further amplified by social media. This is by no means limited to Brazil. This is a problem for all our democracies and beyond. We are committed to stepping up our strategic partnership with Brazil and to joining forces in the defence and promotion of democracy, rule of law and human rights. We are ready to deepen our cooperation on digital development, including in the field of regulating social media and the fight against disinformation. These efforts will not be sufficient on their own and need to go hand in hand with addressing lasting inequalities, which are one of the root causes of polarisation. Government, parliament, civil society and businesses each have a role to play in this. While we applaud the efforts to build unity across the political spectrum, it would be a mistake to assume that we can now go back to business as usual in Brazil and elsewhere. Uniting around democracy requires more than simply condemning violence and extremism. Our political forces carry the responsibility to prevent radicalisation and defend democratic processes on a daily basis, fostering a culture of dialogue and compromise. Protecting democracy will clearly be a long—term challenge that will call for continuous cooperation with Brazilian democratic institutions and civil society. All of Europe’s institutions need to stand together. We highly value the role of the European Parliament in defending democratic values both in the EU and abroad, including through your parliamentary diplomacy. We want to thank you for organising this debate and we look forward to working with you in reactivating our strategic partnership with Brazil.

– Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, the EU has been closely following developments around the Lachin corridor since the beginning of December 2022. In a statement issued on 13 December, the EU called on the Azerbaijani authorities to ensure freedom and security of movement along the corridor, in line with commitments deriving from the trilateral statement of 9 November 2020. Restrictions to such freedom of movement are causing significant distress among the local population. The EU is increasingly alarmed about the negative humanitarian impact resulting from the lack of food, medicine and other essential goods and medical services, in addition to regular disruptions to energy supplies and telecommunications. The EU’s humanitarian funding for 2022 amounts to EUR 3.6 million that has been entirely given to the ICRC, being the only partner on the ground able to access Nagorno-Karabakh. The programme focuses on two areas for its intervention: economic security, which includes programmes to provide conflict—affected people with material and financial support to help them meet their basic needs; second, actions against weapon contamination, with programmes to ensure conflict—affected people are aware of the dangers posed by mines and the explosive remnants of the war and how to safely behave around these. The current situation is not sustainable and creates tensions that run contrary to the much—needed confidence—building efforts. The EU reiterates that other concerns can and should be addressed through dialogue and consultations with the parties involved. It calls for a return to negotiation and for the mounting pressure on the civilian population to cease without further delay. The EU stands ready to contribute to all efforts to build confidence and to address concerns through facilitation and dialogue.

– Madam President, honourable Members. First, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Tardino, and the members of the TRAN Committee for this own-initiative report and their support for the analysis and the initiatives presented in the action plan to boost long-distance and cross-border passenger rail. As stated in the action plan, the Commission will continue with the enforcement of the full and correct implementation of the EU rail acquis and with the removal of remaining barriers that hinder setting up and operating cross-border long distance rail services. In the coming period we plan to propose a number of initiatives in this regard, this has also been identified in your report. We will propose an initiative on multimodal ticketing. Passengers must be able to see all available travel options and all available fares, not just the options that are of commercial interest to operators or to ticket platforms. The passenger is the one to choose. Data needs to be open for consumers and businesses in order to drive up the quality of services. We will also propose an initiative on a more efficient process of capacity allocation and traffic management. A key weakness of the current legislative framework is its reliance on an annual timetable process for the management and allocation of capacity. This process is too rigid and does not allow neither long-term planning to ensure optimal use of capacity nor short-term allocation of capacity to accommodate short notice requests. We will tackle this. Furthermore, we aim to improve the cross-border coordination of capacity, so that cross-border services can be operated more efficiently. Train operators are also inefficient because of obstacles to the mobility of the train drivers across Member States, employers or in terms of road. This is even more important in the rail-freight sector, since 50% of freight trains in Europe are cross-border and are for longer distances. This is why we will propose a revision of the Train Drivers Directive to ensure that the train drivers can easily move between Member States and rail companies while also benefiting from the last technological innovation. And yes, indeed, the language: it does not exist a common language right now in the rail sector. So the cross-border operations require trained drivers to be able to communicate with dispatchers in different languages. And this is a huge obstacle. And the commission is assessing now possible alternatives to the current requirement in our impact assessment. We will also revise the technical specification for interoperability. These are vital to provide a common, legally binding European basis for rail, with the possibility to use the same type of trains anywhere. Not only do the specifications ensure interoperability, they should also reduce costs, as harmonised products can be developed once and deployed across the EU and beyond, since the technical specifications for interoperability are becoming the reference regulatory framework for many other countries. The action plan also announces pilot services, in which interested stakeholders can propose to the Commission their plans for cross-border long-distance passenger services and indicate where they see obstacles the Commission can help with. We do this work taking into account all passengers, including those with reduced mobility and disability, ensuring accessibility. We have received an encouraging number of interesting proposals and they are currently being evaluated. In January we will present the results of the evaluation and discuss the next steps with the proposers. And with that, I would like to thank you again for your work on this own-initiative report and I am looking forward for its adoption in the plenary.

– Madam President, thank you for the contributions to this debate. I appreciate your concerns for the sector and your support in ensuring its safe and sustainable recovery. I would say that not all of you are right, and especially those who are criticising the level of protection for the rights of passengers. I’m repeating the fact that the main problem here, when there is congestion and there are delays, is not that we do not have enough legislation, but it’s not well known, and is not supported by the authorities which are supposed to support it. So it’s not about a new legislation or new things we are going to put forward, but we have to implement it. And during COVID, you know very well that we did a lot of things and the Commission pushed as much as possible the Member States, the agencies for consumer protection, to cooperate. We started infringements. So we are doing what we can, but in the end it’s about implementing and making these rights better known. Some of you discussed rightfully about the impact of decarbonisation and the measures we are supposed to take for the sector, by saying on the one hand that it will come with a new burden which will increase prices, or, the opposite, others saying that we are not doing enough and soon enough, but indeed the decarbonisation needs have to be done in a way that promotes growth and gives the European airlines a competitive edge, because we are looking to it as a global industry as it was rightfully mentioned here. And this was the angle we took through ReFuelEU in aviation. We are trying to establish a way, an industrial angle to decarbonisation of our aviation, creating the market for alternative fuels. And since I’m talking about alternative fuels, this is in this regulation recognised the particular attention we are paying to specific needs of the islands or the outermost regions, the smaller airports. These will benefit from preferential treatment to protect their connectivity, for example, the sustainable alternative fuel allowances that will help bridge the price gap between kerosene and sustainable aviation fuels, and also the possibility to request special treatment under the anti—tankering provisions. So I keep this all the time in mind and I am trying my best to support the connectivity for islands and outer regions. Thank you, Mr Oetjen, for helping to come up with CEF allowances. We are doing our best to persuade Member States on this Single European Sky, the SES+, and in the meantime we are developing technological solutions with SES, our joint undertaking. Now the issue which was raised with claims of fatigue or culture in some airlines which creates, well, reports of crew fatigue and complaints. I must tell you that EASA provides regular reports to the Commission on its monitoring and oversight activities. Both the Commission and EASA recognise that fatigue can be a serious safety hazard and needs to be identified and properly mitigated, and we are continuously following this up. There is a continuous ongoing assessment of the EU flight time limitation. The flight limitation regime is run by us alongside Member States. It’s involving stakeholders’ scientific expertise to monitor the effectiveness of system. The first regular report on the results of the monitoring programme was published in February 2019, and currently the Commission has no data to suggest that the EU flight time limitation regime for pilots would increase the risk of accidents. I know that you are referring also – Ms Tax – to some allegations made by the pilots’ unions regarding the official safety culture at a particular airline. EASA conducted an additional off—site investigation for comprehensive data concerning documented analysis, statistics, evidence, as well as on—site audits, interviewing flight crew members about rostering process, fatigue reporting, safety culture. And I must tell you that it will continue to perform additional inspections on—site for flight crews. And we have absolutely no element at this stage to say that something is non-compliant. But it is monitored permanently, I can assure you. This is no joke. Then how we provide support to have more workers in the system, because this is, as you know very well, one of the issues why we had the delays and crowded airports. And by the way, the Commission encourages Member States to invest in their airports, new technologies, whatever you want, regional rules or whatever. We are not opposing that. So please do what you consider is best for your connectivity. But for the workers, you know very well that it’s difficult because of the safety rules and the vetting of new workers. So it’s a process. We are assured by the industry that this is an ongoing process and things are going to improve. This would be, I would say, some of the answers I have to your concerns. The Air Service Regulation impact assessment is under way. But for those who are asking that social issues like, I don’t know, the operational base to be solved through Air Service Regulation, I’m just reminding you that Air Service Regulation is more than that. And also the social issues are more than Air Service Regulation. So I am not saying that specifically there is the best place to address the social issues, but it’s a complex and multifaceted issue which we need to solve, and I’m committed to do so. Thank you very much for your attention, and let’s continue to work together to support this very important sector.

– Madam President, thank you for putting this debate on the agenda. Aviation has faced unprecedented challenges in the past couple of years. COVID was a huge blow. Not only did traffic drop to zero, but we saw how difficult it is to scale back after two years of travel restrictions. The financial consequences of the COVID crisis will weigh on the sector for a long time. Add to this the war in Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia, which continue to complicate air space use while also driving up energy prices. We have also witnessed the impact of increasing extreme weather events, challenging flight paths and conditions, as well as reminding us of the importance of decarbonising aviation. And there is a diversification of air traffic, with more unmanned aircraft systems due to enter our airspace in the next years. Disruption is the new normal, so we need to work on building up the resilience and adaptation of aviation so that Europeans can continue to benefit from its opportunities, both as passengers and as workers. With the Fit for 55 package we have already made enormous steps to decarbonise aviation. So it’s good to also focus during tonight’s debate on different challenges of the sector, namely the ones for passengers, workers, capacity and safety. Let me start with passengers. Our regulation on air passengers’ rights provides already today the highest level of protection to air passengers at a global level. During the pandemic and over the summer, we made it clear that it was the duty of airlines to respect those rights. We worked with national consumer authorities to ensure the proper enforcement of EU consumer protection laws. The passengers must come first, otherwise there is no trust. And if there is no trust, there will be no market. Although we have a relatively robust system in place, there are some issues that could be better addressed. In particular, a large part of European citizens are still unaware of their rights as air passengers. Even when they are entitled to financial compensation, many of them give up in front of administrative difficulties during the complicated handling process. Already in 2013, the Commission tabled amendments to the Air Passenger Rights Regulation with a view to clarify and simplify the existing rules, provide passengers with more effective complaint handling procedures and strengthen enforcement. I would like to see this proposal being discussed again in Council as we believe it is still fit for purpose. The Commission also intends to make new proposals next year. My services are currently assessing the possibility of new protections in the event of insolvency of carriers or liquidity crises. We are also investigating the possibility of new rights for passengers travelling multimodal. Aviation is an ecosystem. It cannot work unless all parts of the system are functioning properly. Airlines, airports, air traffic controllers, ground handlers and other workers and service providers. All parts are reliant on each other and, naturally, all parts are reliant on the people that they employ. So ensuring high quality and sustainable employment in the aviation sector must be a priority. During the pandemic, we worked with Commissioner Schmidt to help workers keep stable working environments and income whilst also helping businesses stay afloat and able to retain staff. We have also launched a range of short and long—term initiatives aimed at promoting and supporting high social standards in the aviation sector, as well as bringing in more women to the sector. Namely, we have set up expert group working groups to provide recommendations and best practices on key employment issues such as self-employment, the enforcement of applicable labour law oversight, the role of intermediaries and pay to fly schemes. The Commission is also fully committed to ensuring that the legal framework in aviation is fit for purpose in this post-pandemic era. We have been conducting a thorough review of the regulatory framework to determine which improvements are needed, as announced in our Smart and Sustainable Mobility strategy. Clarifying concepts such as operational base or nature of employment could be helpful. We are looking into this. This is, however, a larger issue than the scope of the service regulation. Finding the right solutions needs joint efforts on the Member States side as well, because the enforcement of high social standards is primarily the role of the competent national authorities. And then, of course, it is first and foremost for the employers themselves to ensure that working conditions are sufficient to attract and retain staff. Social dialogue should give the opportunity to agree on acceptable conditions. And of course we support this. In fact, we organised many stakeholder coordination meetings over the summer to support dialogue and joint solutions. In those meetings, a key issue we discussed was also capacity. Flight numbers in 2022 are near pre—COVID levels, around 85% of 2019 traffic levels in most parts of the European network, and above 2019 levels in some parts of the network last summer. And this in a much more constrained airspace due to the impact of the Russian war on Ukraine. Capacity constraints and air traffic management delays do not bode well for next summer and we risk returning to a major capacity crisis in the European skies as already experienced before COVID. So there is no time to spare. And the single European sky reform currently in negotiation between the Parliament and the Council is absolutely necessary to drive efficiency and address unnecessary emissions from congestion problems. I am counting on you to help find solutions to take this reform forward. Finally, let me stress that in everything that we do, safety is always our number one consideration. The European aviation safety system is recognised globally as being one of the safest. But here, too, there are new challenges. An important effect of the COVID crisis was that much of the regular income for aviation safety oversight, which stems from industry fees and charges, was lost, thus limiting resources. Part of our work under the single European Sky Pillar is to help authorities prioritise those resources adequately by setting performance term targets, including on safety. And of course, we rely on IASA as our trusted partner in developing a robust regulatory safety framework and ensuring its oversight and implementation. This is all the more important given new challenges such as the integration of drones into our traditional aviation system or safety and security threats, including cybersecurity, that are heightened in the current geopolitical context. We are constantly monitoring the situation and responding to these issues in full cooperation with you and national oversight authorities and with industry. So thank you very much for listening to me. And it’s my turn to listen to you all, which I will do with pleasure.

– Mr President, colleagues, honourable Members, for a very interesting debate. I think I addressed at the beginning some of the amendments and questions you have around these two files. The debate was very interesting also. It shows that we are in the make of two very important legislative files. Some have doubts. Some would like more ambition. But I think we have to keep in mind that this is for the first time that we are acting on maritime decarbonisation. We have to keep in mind that both files have an industrial angle to it, and I hope that we will be able to create the right market for alternative fuels to be taken up in our sectors. So this being said, I would encourage the plenary to support these two files, solid compromises, and have, why not, a pragmatic approach to these two files, keeping in mind that of course, depending on how it goes, it can revise. The Commission stands ready to support you in the negotiations with the Council, as usual, and I am very confident that we will deliver together something very good for both sectors in transport and for our citizens.

– Mr President, honourable Members, Rapporteurs, Shadow Rapporteurs. First, I would like to thank everybody who was involved in this dossier’s reports on the FuelEU Maritime Regulation and Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation. I really appreciate the efforts made by everybody to reach such broad majorities around the compromises. It is very good to see these key proposals moving forward, as they are important deliverables for the Fit for 55 package. Accelerating the uptake of alternative fuels is a cornerstone of our approach to achieve our 2030 climate ambition. It is also an effective contribution to decreasing our reliance on fossil fuel imports and improving energy security and air quality in the EU. FuelEU Maritime will play a crucial role in decarbonising the maritime sector. Imposing gradually stricter greenhouse gas intensity limits on the energy used onboard ships will provide a clear signal to the market of the need for renewable and low-carbon fuels in this sector. It also provides regulatory certainty and facilitates the necessary investment for the energy transition. The additional requirements to use onshore power supply will drastically cut emissions in port areas from the most polluting ships, including minimising harmful air pollution. It is important to ensure that the provisions for zero emissions at berth remain robust. The report adopted in the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) is the result of a well-balanced compromise following months of discussions. It maintains the majority of central elements in the core methodology of the original Commission proposal, such as focus on greenhouse gas intensity, technology neutrality and flexibility mechanisms. Some other amendments could reduce the efficiency and make it more difficult to implement the regulation. I would like to recall some of the key elements behind our proposal. First, the Commission has proposed a level of ambition that ensures we are on track to deliver the climate goals in 2030 and 2050, with maritime transport playing its role as part of the economy-wide effort for decarbonisation. The priority should be to adopt this important piece of legislation quickly, with the reassurance that we would soon review the regulation. Second, regarding the inclusion of a sub—target for renewable fuels of non-biological origin, I would like to recall that FuelEU Maritime is built upon a principle of technological neutrality, which is also strongly supported by the stakeholders. While I agree that we should incentivise the use of these fuels, we should leave it to the market to make technology decision and drive the price down as supply increases. Otherwise, we risk locking in the large majority of the existing fleet on the most expensive fuel option, making them end up paying to comply. That would be a lose-lose situation leading to higher costs for operators while doing nothing for cutting emissions. Other amendments have also been tabled ahead of today’s plenary debate on the scope of the regulation, both in terms of the ship size threshold and geographical scope. Regarding the former, in the Commission’s opinion, the 5 000 gross tonnes threshold remains the most optimal one where we tackle 90% of emissions while not imposing regulatory burdens on 99% of maritime transport SMEs. We must also keep in mind that the EUR 5.7 billion investment estimate for ports to put in place new infrastructure to meet the FuelEU and AFIR current requirements already requires significant effort. It is extremely doubtful that the ports sector could cover drastically increased investment needs, which would be required if the size threshold is lowered. As regards the geographical scope, our proposal is fair towards third countries and allows them to decide on appropriate action regarding their share of energy used emissions. The only real solution to this problem is a global measure agreed at the IMO, which the EU is pushing for. That being said, I think we can all agree on the need to set a clear path for swift action on renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport. By delivering a robust legal framework with ambitious but achievable targets, we will encourage investment, create demand and allow the supply to scale up in a timely fashion. Let’s not forget that decarbonising shipping will require a major effort from operators and ports and that we should do as much as we can to ensure a smooth transition. A few words on the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation: to accelerate the uptake of sustainable alternative fuels, and particularly zero—emission vehicles, we must also ensure that a sufficient network of publicly accessible recharging and refuelling points is available across the EU, and this regulation provides certainty to light and heavy-duty vehicles that they can easily recharge and refuel. I want to welcome the TRAN report, which fully supports the switch to regulation, the setting of binding deployment targets and requirements to achieve full interoperability. This is also a very good starting point for the trialogues, considering that the Council also supports these main principles in its general approach. Some of the proposed amendments go well beyond the scope and parameters of our proposal. Let me therefore reiterate the key reasoning behind our proposal. Deployment of infrastructure should largely be market driven. We are setting mandatory deployment targets to ensure that a sufficient network of electric recharging and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure is deployed across the EU. Member States will have to ensure this. On this basis, market actors should invest further into the recharging and refuelling infrastructure needed to fully correspond to market demand, providing the optimal infrastructure. Targets should also remain technically feasible, considering the investments needed, particularly in the underlying electricity grid infrastructure. 2025 will be upon us very quickly. Those green investments will take some time, especially for truck recharging. Equally, deployment targets should be reasonable and be set at a level that will not crowd out private investments or lead to unused infrastructure in parts and regions of Europe. It would simply make it more expensive for our citizens. Competition between operators of recharging points will be key to having the best services and prices for consumers. We agree on the need to ensure that users have full access to relevant data. Transparent price information and easy payment methods. Overall, we should be careful not to overregulate this nascent and fast—growing market, for example, in the area of roaming, and thereby discourage private investments. When it comes to infrastructure for propulsion fuels in maritime ports, I believe that we need to be careful in what can be prescribed already today. Picking one technology now and mandating such infrastructure in all ports will effectively pre-empt future technology choices by industry. We will have a review on AFIR early on that will provide more clarity on possible decarbonisation pathways for the maritime sector that would allow us to set appropriate targets. As regards targets for rail infrastructure to be certainty under AFIR, I would like to recall that, under our TEN-T proposal, we already propose a full electrification of the TEN-T Core and Comprehensive Railway Networks. Repeating such requirements in AFIR would only create unneeded legislative redundancies. To conclude, I look forward to a fruitful debate and I hope that you can adopt the Parliament position on these two files this week to start trialogues next week already. Thank you very much.

– Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for the quality of the debate today, which reflects the quality of your report. It is clear that new technologies will impact our tax systems. To ensure that this impact is positive and to achieve tax fairness and tax compliance through these technologies, we need to act in a coordinated manner at EU level. Your report contributes to this effort and I am looking forward to continue our collaboration on this topic with you.

– Madam President, thank you. Honourable Members, I want to thank you on behalf of Commissioner Gentiloni for your report on the impact of new technologies (including crypto and blockchain) on taxation. Let me particularly thank the rapporteur, Madam Pereira, for the excellent work and for the opportunity to discuss this very important topic with you. Let me start with some remarks linked to the challenges of rapid digitalisation in the area of taxation, in particular linked to the growth of crypto-assets. As you underline in your report, these are difficult to classify, value and administer. This poses a challenge to tax administrators seeking to tax them fairly and effectively. They often do this through administrative guidance, but some Member States have dedicated tax rules. Most Member States try to align the tax treatment of crypto-assets with that of comparable assets, while some Member States have a separate regime or rate for these. The EU should facilitate and foster the sharing of best practices among Member States in this area. Then, a proposal to further revise the Directive on Administrative Cooperation to reflect the new reality of crypto-assets is under preparation. It aims to put crypto-asset service providers in a similar position to providers of traditional financial services. The Directive will also close the loophole for avoiding tax through the use of crypto-assets by ensuring that tax administrations have the information they need to tax these assets according to their tax rules. Blockchain Technology. Now, your report mentions the role of technology in ensuring tax fairness and compliance. We are convinced of the potential of crypto and blockchain technology to build a new generation of decentralised trans-European systems in the area of taxation, as well as in customs. The Commission’s services have been studying blockchain technology since 2017. Two successful proofs of concept with blockchain have been concluded since then. Eight Member States were involved in the last of these two pilots. We are assessing the feasibility of using EBSI as a platform for this new generation of trans-European systems. Yet we are cautious to make sure that such innovative solutions do not fall short of expectations, meet the legal requirements – such as the GDPR – and are fully supportable and maintainable in the long run. All this is being done under the Fiscalis programme. Finally, the use of new technologies in the fight against tax fraud and evasion in the digital economy calls for capable tax administration staff. To this end, appropriate training and best practice sharing between the European tax administrations can only be beneficial. At their annual EU gathering (the ‘TADEUS’ event), their heads discussed what common projects they foresee in the area of digitalisation. Honourable Members, let me conclude my introductory remarks here. I am looking forward to hearing your views.

– Madam President, thank you for the very interesting debate tonight and for the interventions and comments. I would like to say a couple of words to address some of the issues you have raised. Of course, it is important to use sustainable feed ingredients in EU aquaculture. This is an important aspect of the environmental performance of aquaculture, as mentioned in the Commission’s strategic guidelines. These guidelines propose the development of a guidance document on environmental performance that includes the mapping of good practices at government and industry level. It should also cover the use of sustainable feed. Then, the organic production action plan, which was adopted in 2021, provides for access to further promote the growth of organic aquaculture in the EU. Among these actions, the Commission would identify and address, as appropriate, any specific obstacles to the growth of EU organic aquaculture. The work is ongoing. We are consulting with national experts on these obstacles. Then, in our strategic guidelines, we recognise that the administrative burden is a major obstacle that still needs to be addressed to attract investment to establish new aquaculture facilities. The guidelines provide concrete recommendations in this area. In addition, as part of the implementation of its strategic guidelines, the Commission will develop a guidance document gathering best practices to serve as a reference for the necessary changes in this respect in Member States. To conclude, let me also mention that the Commission is now preparing an EU-wide communication campaign on EU aquaculture to promote awareness among consumers. Very recently, we held a joint event with the Committee of the Regions, dedicated to the regional authorities, which are often in charge of licensing and regulating aquaculture in the Member States. The message is clear: by implementing the Commission’s strategic guidelines, we have a unique opportunity to promote the sustainable growth and competitiveness of EU aquaculture and maximise its contribution towards making the European Green Deal a success.

– Madam President, firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Aguilera, as well as the shadow rapporteurs for this very important report, which the Commission welcomes. Following the Council conclusions of July this year and the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of last year, your report rounds up the broad support of the major EU institutions and bodies for the Commission’s strategic guidelines for a sustainable and competitive EU Aquaculture of May 2021. The Commission fully agrees with your report. Aquaculture needs to have the prominent place it deserves as it is a crucial part of the sustainable blue economy, and it contributes to the objectives of the European Green Deal. We have also carefully taken note of the concerns expressed in your report when it comes to the current state of play of aquaculture in Europe. In fact, most of these concerns are actually already addressed in the Commission’s strategic guidelines. I would like to focus on two points that were highlighted in your report, namely access to space for marine aquaculture and administrative procedures. The Commission is now working to establish guiding documents, as both the question of appropriate access and efficient procedures are key enablers for our aquaculture to grow. We agree that further efforts are necessary in both areas, which is why we have prioritised these actions. The Commission is also managing and planning actions in areas you highlighted in your report, such as sustainable feed, animal welfare, and environmental performance, and we propose to use Horizon Europe funding to promote research and innovation for aquaculture. On the topic of funding, I can confirm that the Commission regularly monitors strategic guidelines for sustainable and competitive aquaculture. These are duly considered in national programmes under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. Similarly, we insist that these guidelines are taken into account for the multiannual national strategies for aquaculture. Member States seem to have taken this strategy on board, for both the funding and strategy programmes, which we very much welcome, as it demonstrates our common vision when it comes to aquaculture. We also know that the challenge for fisheries and aquaculture coming from increasing cormorant numbers in some areas of the EU is an important concern highlighted in your report. Let me recall that Member States can implement preventive measures to avoid or limit the damage caused by cormorants, including by using the derogations under the Birds Directive, and actions to address conflicts with cormorants can also be funded by the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, and this includes prevention and compensation measures. Taking into account the existing instruments and tools, and that we already allow Member States to take preventive measures, the Commission is currently not planning to change the legal protection regime for cormorants. However, we are certainly ready to further support Member States and stakeholders with the existing EU cormorant platform. Furthermore, the mapping of good practices on the management of predators is part of the future guidance document on environmental performance, which the Commission will develop as part of the implementation of our strategic guidelines. Regarding organic aquaculture, to which you paid special attention in your report, we have encouraged Member States to include an increase in organic aquaculture production in the revision of their national aquaculture strategies and in their programmes under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. This increased support for organic aquaculture by Member States will contribute to meeting the farm to fork strategy targets and, together with the Member States, we are working on identifying specific obstacles to growth of EU organic agriculture, which would also be a response to one of the calls in your report. Finally, I’m confident that our combined efforts and support for sustainable and competitive aquaculture in the EU will help this important economic sector to realise its potential in the years to come, to the benefit of us all.

– Madam President, thank you once again for this important debate and also for helping us to raise public awareness about the importance of the ocean. We face a ‘now or never’ moment when it comes to addressing the triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Ambitious outcomes of the COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh and the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Montreal are crucial, and the oceans play a key role in both. Let me say a few words on some of the issues you raised during this debate. We agree that we need to protect the high seas and ensure that future activities in these sensitive areas are solidly based on the science. That’s why the EU is working hard to ensure that a strong and ambitious treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction is agreed. We intend to continue to take a lead role in the negotiations, leading to an ambitious, fair and equitable agreement. We will aim to maintain the political momentum through the High Ambition Coalition on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction. The Commission also fully agrees that marine minerals in the area cannot be exploited until the effects of deep-sea mining on the marine environment, biodiversity and human activities have been sufficiently researched, the risks are understood, and technologies and operational practices are able to demonstrate that the environment is not seriously harmed, in line with the precautionary approach and the ecosystem-based approach. This has been clearly confirmed in our international ocean governance agenda. With regard to the implementing act on vulnerable marine ecosystems, resulting in the closure of some areas for bottom fishing, we have always said that once the new scientific advice was available, we would carefully assess it and consider whether a revision of the implementing act was necessary. I understand that this issue is expected to be discussed in the Fisheries Committee on 10 October, where the Commission will have the opportunity to explain its position in more detail. We are looking forward to the final resolution, which you will adopt later this week, and to working together with you on setting the course for a sustainable blue planet.

– Madam President, let me thank you for the welcome opportunity to have this discussion today on ocean governance and biodiversity. The ocean is our planet’s life-support system. And still, debates like this one are needed to keep the spotlight on the ocean and to reiterate our joint commitment towards better management and protection of our oceans. Honourable Members, the ocean is not doing well. Insufficient progress has been made over the last years towards a clean, healthy, productive and resilient ocean. And this is our collective responsibility. Solutions exist and they are in our hands. They require bold choices, which need to be made now. And with the largest combined exclusive economic zone in the world, the EU and its Member States have a particular interest in steering this debate and reaffirming their ambition for an improved ocean governance. The role and the support of the European Parliament is crucial in this regard. Today’s debate and the resolution that you will adopt later this week therefore come at exactly the right moment. And this year, 2022, is a pivotal year for ocean governance. Milestone events have taken place in 2022, like the one Ocean Summit in Brest or the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon. In a few weeks time, the Climate Change COP 27 in Sharm El Sheikh will be an opportunity to further strengthen ocean climate change, mitigation and adaptation action. And the biodiversity COP15 in Montreal will aim at an ambitious agreement, including targets to protect land and global oceans by 2030. Honourable Members, as we have often said, there is no green without blue and under the umbrella of the European Green Deal, this translates in both the international and the EU domestic strands of ocean related policies. With the joint Communication on the EU’s International Ocean Governance Agenda of June this year, the EU confirms its commitments under the United Nations 2030 Agenda and ahead of the two decisive COPS later this year. In this context, one of the key priorities we have is to halt and reverse the loss of marine biodiversity. We hope to achieve this by concluding as soon as possible an ambitious UN treaty to protect biodiversity in the high seas, including a target of 30% marine protected areas by 2030 and new large-scale marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean. With the High Ambition Coalition, which you have launched, we are at the forefront of the efforts to achieve an ambitious outcome to these negotiations. At the last negotiating round that took place in New York in August, the EU took a leading role and it was instrumental in achieving very good progress, even though, unfortunately, in the end no final agreement could be reached. Another priority is to protect the seabed by prohibiting deep-sea mining until its effects on the marine environment, biodiversity, human activities have been sufficiently researched, the risks are understood and the technologies and operational practices are able to demonstrate no serious harm to the environment. Furthermore, we need to ensure sustainable fisheries with a zero tolerance approach against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. In this context, we welcome the multilateral agreement achieved in the World Trade Organization regarding the ban of harmful fisheries subsidies. Yes, it is only the first step, but the EU is fully committed to complementing this agreement as soon as possible with those essential elements not yet agreed. Our fight against climate change and against marine pollution continues as well. This includes decarbonising the maritime sectors and preserving the oceans-blue carbon function, as well as work towards concluding an ambitious, legally-binding global plastic agreement by 2024. Last but not least, we need to step up efforts to build up ocean knowledge. Based on European programmes such as Copernicus and EMODnet, we want to support the implementation of a UN Decade Collaborative Centre for Ocean Prediction and encourage the establishment of an Intergovernmental Panel for Ocean Sustainability. Honourable Members, our international efforts to improve ocean governance clearly mirror the ambition of our domestic policies. The ocean, which acts as a significant carbon sink - notably its seabed, is one of our strongest allies when it comes to reaching our climate goals. Let me recall that we proposed a new standard on greenhouse gas intensity of energy used on board ships. We are working with the co-legislators on extending the EU ETS to maritime transport and we are also helping the fishing sector to decarbonise and to become less dependent on fossil fuels. And climate mitigation efforts need to go hand-in-hand with sustained and robust action on adaptation, to make our oceans as resilient as possible. Nature based solutions are at the forefront of our action. In this context, we have proposed legally-binding EU targets to restore marine ecosystems. Looking at how the ocean can support our decarbonisation efforts, offshoring renewable energy is one of the pillars of the EU’s energy transition, but we will need to look beyond offshore wind. The energy from tides and waves are predictable and promise to complement today’s technologies for wind and sun. Maritime spatial planning will help us to reconcile decarbonisation objectives, but also nature protection and restoration at sea. As regards the oceans economic potential, the implementation of our communication on the sustainable blue economy has already brought many positive achievements. The implementation of the Commission’s strategic guidelines for aquaculture has been advancing and we will shortly adapt an EU algae initiative which will bring new opportunities for our blue economy. In parallel will continue our joint efforts with Member States and coastal communities to make EU fisheries more sustainable. Important progress has already been made in the Atlantic, clearly showing that the sustainability pays off also economically, but additional efforts will be necessary also in other sea basins. We are fully aware that, first, Brexit and then the COVID pandemic and now the Russian ruthless invasion of Ukraine and its consequences pose enormous challenges to the fishing sector. The EU has reacted quickly, proposing two emergency packages in 2020 and 2022 respectively, to support the fisheries sector in addressing the socio-economic consequences. We now need to further help our fishermen and women to decrease their dependency on fossil fuels and make our fisheries more resilient. Finally, let me mention research and innovation, which also play a key role to unlock the oceans for potential. Horizon Europe, and in particular the mission to restore the health of our ocean and waters by 2030, can contribute to scaling up solutions and help us to achieve the blue targets of the European Green Deal. And we also need to raise awareness about oceans and increase ocean literacy, in particular of the young generation. Our Ocean Literacy Initiative, the Youth for Ocean Coalition, the Network of European Blue Schools and the EU4Ocean Forum are instrumental in this regard. Honourable Members, we all know that only healthy oceans can be climate mitigators and provide services for our blue economy. Therefore, it’s not a luxury, but it is a necessity to prevent and mitigate the pressures provoking the biodiversity loss in our seas. We are now at a crucial moment in which we have the opportunity to put in place concrete actions to stop biodiversity loss, as well as restoring the marine ecosystems, and sustainable fisheries play a key role in this context, and the recent Commission proposal for a new nature restoration law, as well as the upcoming action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems, will not only contribute to protecting and restoring our seas, but also to making the fisheries sector in Europe more resilient in the long term. Thank you for your attention and I am looking forward for your comments.

– Mr President, honourable Members, it was a pleasure for me to listen to you. It is acknowledged by the whole House that the legislation in front of you is very important. I really hope that your vote tomorrow will reflect the solid position of the Parliament and you will have a good compromise on this so that negotiations with the Council would be possible and smooth. It is important because it’s an important piece of our energy framework legislation. As Transport Commissioner, I’m also very eager to state the fact that, for many files in transport, what constitutes renewable fuel is very important. And you know that the challenge we see for our mobility to decarbonise, it means we have to use whatever we can, but in a smart way to deliver enough volumes in the market to ensure that our aviation or road transport or our trains or ships can decarbonise in a sustainable way. And when I say sustainable, I’m thinking an economical, viable approach towards the energy we are using in various sectors, transport included. So I wish you all much success with the vote tomorrow. Thank you for your debate and thank you rapporteur for steering this work.

– Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it’s a pleasure to join you today. Commissioner Simpson is currently in the college presenting the emergency energy package, and she asked me to take her place here to present the Commission’s position on the Renewable Energy Directive. No need to say this is an important file. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Pieper, the members of the ITRE and ENVI committees, as well as the other committees involved for the important progress made on this proposal. This Commission entered its mandate with high ambitions for decarbonisation. These ambitions need to be accelerated due to our current unfolding crisis. We have met the case at the moment, over the past six months also, that we are facing an acute situation, one that calls for an even more rapid, large-scale deployment of renewable energy. Renewables are key to phasing out our dependency on Russian fossil fuels. And they are fundamental in our efforts to address the climate crisis. The summer that just passed was a stark reminder that we cannot become complacent while energy scarcity threatens to affect our economy and citizens. This is why an enhanced and resolute legal framework for renewables is paramount for both the European Green Deal and REPowerEU. Many of your amendments mirror the goal we had in mind when we were drafting this proposal – the overall target of 45%, for example. These are challenging goals, but I am confident that we are on the same page when it comes to the ambition level. However, if we are to succeed in reaching the target, we should avoid undermining it through other means. Here I am thinking of the non-binding heating and cooling target. In the Commission’s view, the non-binding element significantly decreases the ambition of the Commission’s proposals. Similarly, the RFNBO target for industry has been weakened by excluding by—products. I encourage you to look at this issue again in the trilogue phase. To support the uptake of renewable hydrogen, the Commission will adopt soon the delegated act under the current Renewable Energy Directive. I welcome the ITRE vote which supported the Commission proposal in this respect, and I encourage the plenary to endorse this position. Similarly, some areas are still to be reconciled on bioenergy. For example, we need to find a balance between avoiding the negative impact on biodiversity while taking into account the effects on energy supply in the current energy crisis situation. Restricting renewable targets to primary woody biomass would not send the right signal in the current context of tight energy supplies. Finally, I know that the elements on permitting from our REPowerEU proposal are not a part of this report. Even so, I use the opportunity to restate how important a factor this is for our future energy system based on renewables. We are currently speeding examination of the second proposal by the co-legislators and I hope that it will be treated as an integral part of the ongoing RED revision. When it comes to renewables, speed and scale are key and permitting allows us to unlock the bottleneck standing in the way of both. I stop here. Let me thank you again for your work on this proposal and I am looking forward for your comments to pass to my colleagues in the college.

– Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members very much for this debate. I think we are very much aligned, as we always were, on supporting the internal market and the free movement of goods. I’m saying that we are aligned and you need to recognise that, at the peak of the trouble with the shutting down of frontiers and long queues of trucks because of the COVID restrictions, the Commission acted quickly and convinced Member States to act with the guidelines. We managed to open the frontiers and we have something solid left after that. The whole principle of green corridors is now embedded, at least in the Schengen area, as a principle with 15 minutes to cross a border for trucks with goods. We have digital documents to be presented at the frontier, and the digitalising of documents and goods, so that the time spent checking and verifying is diminished. The last discussion I had with transport Ministers, again in anticipation of new restrictions because of Omicron, was to give priority to the transport workers for vaccination, so that we will make sure that they do not fall under possible restrictions imposed for health reasons in the Member States. It’s something which we are monitoring at all the frontiers – the passes and the corridors – through our satellite application, so we know the waiting times and it’s not such a tough situation as it used to be. But, of course, there are some traditional points in which waiting times are higher and these are at the border of Schengen – this, I totally recognise – but also, for example, at the border between Bulgaria and Romania, and not only Romania and Hungary. At the time, we discussed various solutions to these queues. For example, I know projects which the Commission is ready to support, to develop smart parking before the frontier so that you don’t have a queue of trucks at the frontier with controls for entering the Schengen area, but have them some distance away with a smart indication on when they should go to get their pass. So all this use of new technologies and smart ideas would help ease an unfortunate situation, which is the Schengen frontier inside our internal market. This week, we have presented the new proposal on the revision of the TEN—T Regulation. It comes, for example for Ireland, with better designed roads towards Europe, which would be of the standard promoted by the European Commission and European Member States as part of our network. They were not very well developed previously because there was no need, but now we are thinking about how to better connect Ireland with the continent. Many of you discussed Brenner. That’s the latest thing that we are working on at the moment. We are permanently working on Brenner. The most important thing here is that what is not acceptable is, as Mr Schwab said, is to transfer problems from one region to another on the corridor. Someone on a corridor cannot say that because they have issues with, for example, congestion or the quality of air, they cannot move the queue of trucks from their region to the neighbouring region. I say that because, whatever solution is found, it has to be agreed by everyone in order not to have bottlenecks along such an important corridor. As I say, we are working on this again and are in permanent dialogue with the countries involved. We have relaunched it at government level. We have many very good ideas and solutions, which it is possible to be put in place with the support of the Commission as long as they are agreed. But how many ideas and projects will we have and how much willingness will we have to solve them? What we actually need is the political will of the parties involved to agree on a common solution. That being said, we are going to work hard to make sure that any restrictions put on the free flow of goods in the internal market are addressed immediately and we will find solutions for this. I think we are a long way from the beginning of the crisis, so Member States’ governments have understood what it would mean for their citizens if they started closing frontiers for one reason or another, and how this would affect people and their economies because of the supply chains. Thank you very much for this debate. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

– Mr President, honourable Members, since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the Commission has emphasised the importance of the green lanes, as they are vital in order to preserve the EU-wide operation of supply chains and the functioning of the single market for goods during these difficult times. The free movement of goods is a key principle of European law. Traffic restrictions can be qualified as measures with an effect equivalent to import and export restrictions. However, in specific cases such restrictions may be justified under the Treaty. The Court of Justice confirmed that requirements in the public interest, such as the protection of the environment or health reasons, may justify a restriction if the measure is appropriate to achieving these goals, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieving them. I stress here that proportionality is key for any legislative or regulatory measure doomed to balance different public interests, while remaining within the boundaries of the EU Treaties. Besides proportionality, there is another pillar on which all EU legislation is based: non-discrimination. Therefore, any restriction on the freedom of movement cannot be based on a discriminatory treatment based on the origin of the persons, companies or vehicles to which it applies. These three major boundaries – EU Treaties, proportionality and non-discrimination – create a logic and legal framework under which EU law is applied, and should also be taken at all times into consideration when adopting measures restricting the freedom of movement. Of course, we all know that there are cases where traffic restrictions are needed and are being used. As in any area of EU legislation, the Commission has and will stand ready to help find solutions that take into account all relevant aspects, and find the correct balance between the different public interests such as the freedom of movement and the protection of environmental health, in order to ensure full respect of all EU law requirements. As guardian of the Treaty, the Commission retains its right to launch infringement procedures if it considers that EU law is not respected, especially in those cases where the stakeholders involved in applying restrictions do not advance towards complying with their Treaty obligations.

– Mr President, I would like to thank honourable Members for all their comments. I’m pleased to note their enthusiasm and support for the European Year of Rail, not just as a showcase for what rail means and will be in our lives in Europe, but as an essential part of our transport system. Regarding the next steps, when we talk about the passengers, night trains included, you have seen in the action plan we launched yesterday that we have identified a series of actions on which we are going to act in the coming years in order to boost long-distance rail for passengers. That includes, of course, the night train, as long as the project promoters would like it and public service obligations kick in as is intended and has been announced in some Member States. Regarding concrete action for what’s going to happen next year, we will have a revised regulatory framework for train drivers, regulatory action to improve the capacity allocation and the traffic management process, guidelines for setting truck access charges that support long—distance and cross-border passenger services, a new regulation on multimodal digital mobility services for ticketing, assessment of the need for an EU—wide VAT exemption for international trade services, and so on and so forth, together with the ESO Regulation and interpretive guidelines. So we have a wealth of action identified and ready to discuss for the future of rail. Coming back with a word on the last finale of the European Year of Rail, we are working on the last event. It will most likely take place in the context of the European Rail Summit, organised by CNSE on 21 February under the umbrella of the French Presidency. In addition, as announced in the European Year of Rail Decision, we will work on its evaluation and report back to the other European institutions. I think that this evaluation report will again be an opportunity for you – and for us actually – to reflect on the feedback received in the various events and activities organised during this year. Just a word on the fact that next year is the European Year of Youth. The link between young people and rail is very important, on one hand because they are huge supporters of this more sustainable mode of transportation, but, on the other hand, because the transport sector needs more young people to join its workforce. Our rail companies are world champions and a valuable source of jobs and growth in the EU, but rail is currently facing an ageing challenge with a large share of its employees expected to retire. So I hope that the European Year of Youth next year will also be used by transport people as a great opportunity to talk about the opportunities and attract young people to professions in this sector. Thank you very much. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

– Mr President, one year ago I addressed this European Parliament plenary to thank you for your support to adoption of the decision to declare 2021 the European Year of Rail. One year later, I’m very happy to be with you again to take stock of what we have achieved and to outline what the year has delivered. As the end of the European Year of Rail is approaching, I can confidently say that there is a strong appetite for rail in Europe. Despite the COVID—19 pandemic, the European Year of Rail has been welcomed with great enthusiasm by the sector and beyond. So far, we have received more than 350 proposals for events and activities. The Connecting Europe Express, a dedicated train that travelled across Europe in September and October, visiting 26 countries in 36 days, has been one of the main highlights of the year. It truly lived up to its name, as it brought together national, regional and local authorities, society at large and the rail sector. It encouraged more than 40 partners from the sector to join forces to set up an unprecedented pan—European rail service, clearly showing that Europe is stronger together. At every one of the more than 200 stops along the journey, we were welcomed with great enthusiasm by national, regional, local authorities, stakeholders and citizens, including some of you. We also collected one or more flags at each of these stops, which means that by the moment we reached our end destination in Paris, we had gathered more than 200 flags. So what a beautiful way to symbolise the unifying power of railways in Europe. However, the Connecting Europe Express also illustrated very well the many obstacles rail still faces and needs to overcome to become the preferred mode of transport. Ideally, the Connecting Europe Express should have been one single train, but the lack of interoperability between some parts of the European network meant that we had to have three different trains to fit the different gauges used in Europe. And this is only one part of the story, as our journey across Europe highlighted many other issues that we still need to address to fully benefit from rail’s sustainability potential. So, my takeaway from the Year of Rail is that we need more and better rail. As to make rail more attractive, we need to make rail more reliable, flexible and cost—effective, which is not possible without further innovation and digitalisation. I’m happy, therefore, that in November, the Council adopted the regulation establishing Europe’s Rail Joint Undertaking, the successor of Shift2Rail. At EU level, the lessons learned from the Connecting Europe Express have already fed into our proposals to boost the rail sector. Yesterday, we presented the action plan to boost passenger rail services. This plan builds on efforts by Member States to make key connections between cities faster, through better managing infrastructure capacity, coordinating timetables, pooling locomotives, coaches and wagons, and improving infrastructure to make new train services possible. Yesterday, in the same package, we also adopted a proposal for the revision of the TEN-T guidelines and the Rail Freight Corridors Regulation. Our proposal aims to ensure a stronger link between good infrastructure and good capacity, creating true European transport corridors for rail. In the TEN-T revision, we also build in stronger coordination of investments and the removal of operational obstacles for both rail freight and passengers. And we will continue focusing on rail in our future works, as we will be preparing the Green Freight package for the end of 2022, in which rail will also play a prominent role. It will be our contribution to make sure that the momentum continues beyond the European Year of Rail. So thank you very much for your attention and your support during this year full of events.

– Mr President, it is, as usual, a pleasure to listen to colleagues here in the House and you are all very much up with the times with your debates, and I can see what is worrying you. It is worrying what is going on right now in Europe with energy prices but we have to be aware and differentiate a bit between what is actually transport policy and what is the global market and other global effects on the issue. What is interesting, and was raised by you, is to discuss the cumulative effects of various measures in the Fit for 55 package, which are beyond transport policies directly. The truth is that the Commission’s modelling estimates the cumulative effects of the different policy proposals over time. This is true not only for cost but also for benefits, such as important air quality or reduced fossil fuel import bills. Importantly, as the modelling has shown, the proposed measures interact and stress on each other. So the right mix of policies lessens the possible negative impacts and enables greater ambition. Road transport provides an example of this dynamic at work. Improving CO2 standards for cars and vans will ensure the supply of low emission vehicles. A mix of taxation and carbon pricing provides incentives for the purchase of low emission vehicles, ensuring demand. And finally, providing support for installing charging infrastructure will ensure that the transition is feasible. So this would be the plan that explains the package. Let’s hope that the market also will kick in somewhere in all this story, and then we will have a more natural and solid transition. What are we doing in transport to address the complexity of the issues brought about by the transition? This is highlighted in the smart and sustainable mobility strategy. You discussed it and you looked at the basket of measures I was proposing and you said it was OK, because it is for the transition, it is for each mode, it is for multimodality. We are adding brick by brick to this construction of the sustainable future of transport, the last one being yesterday with the TEN-T Regulation. So I trust that if we are discussing and approaching it from all angles, looking at the threats but also the benefits, looking at the costs but also at where we can reduce the costs in other parts, it might in the end come to a positive result. The emissions trading system (ETS) was discussed in particular. It’s true that the ETS is proposed for roads and buildings and this is something new. And of course, we don’t want to create an effect which would lead to poverty in transport for people because of the increase in prices. The measure envisaged by the Commission was the creation of the social climate fund, which will channel around 25% of auction revenues from the new ETS to counter energy and transport poverty. The fund will support measures and investments intended to grant improved access to zero- and low-emission mobility and transport. Member States are also able to give temporary direct support to vulnerable households to absorb the ETS immediate price impact – indeed, from their budgets, in answer to Mr Marinescu, where else from? The Commission, also proposes that the Member States dedicate all revenues from the existing and the new ETS to these climate-related purposes. And I know very well that in this House, each time we agree on taxes or put a price on the externalities, we ask that the money collected will go towards innovation and green policies so that the cost of these externalities will be reduced over time. Apart from the social climate fund, all the others, as I said in my initial speech – the Social Fund, the Just Transition Fund, the Cohesion Fund – are all envisaged to support this transition and the eventual impact of the ETS on buildings and roads. But the ball is in your court and I’m looking forward to your debate in the European Parliament on this topic. We are here as a Commission to support this debate and look forward to a good outcome from it. In transport policy, in particular, if you look at all the measures, a basket of measures we are proposing in our strategy, you will see that it all makes sense for a solid transition towards more sustainable and smart transport.

– Mr President, the concept of transport poverty, or mobility poverty, is attracting increasing attention. Despite the lack of an exact definition, transport poverty generally refers to the inability of accessing mobility services either due to the cost, or because the services do not exist. It is not necessarily referring exclusively to those who cannot afford the access to transportation. We should also read it in a larger perspective, including those households where transport represents an important share of the family budget, and they are very sensitive to increase in prices of transport and mobility in general. Indeed, whereas the single market in transport has increased connectivity, mobility remains expensive for people with lower incomes and is not sufficiently accessible for people with disabilities or reduced mobility. In rural, peripheral, remote areas, including the outermost regions and islands, improved public transport links and access to affordable connectivity in general is essential to guarantee lean mobility for all. Mobility poverty can jeopardise access to products and services at a competitive price, as well as to social and cultural activities. But, more importantly, it can be an obstacle to access medical care, education and employment for citizens. In this context, mobility poverty is increasingly a concern, in particular for vulnerable groups. In our sustainable and smart mobility strategy, we are very clear on the importance of transport being available and affordable for all. Our attention shall be focused on making sure it remains available for vulnerable groups. The European Pillar of Social Rights is the European compass to make sure that a green and digital transition is socially fair and just. The pillar lists transport among the essential services that everyone shall have access to, and underscores the necessity to support people in need to access them. As announced in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, the Commission will present next year a report on access to essential services. It will also include a mapping of existing national and EU measures, supporting access for people at risk of poverty and social exclusion. In the context of the Fit for 55 package the Commission has proposed a new social climate fund to address specifically the social impact of the green transition on vulnerable households, micro-enterprises and transport users, arising from the introduction of emission trading in the buildings and road transport sectors. This is of particular importance to ensure that the transition to a climate-neutral economy is just and leaves no one behind, and to ensure its social acceptance. Once adopted by the legislator, it will provide funding to Member States to grant temporary income support and allow for subsidising to support investments intended to reduce vulnerable groups’ reliance on fossil fuels. It should offer the possibility of facilitating the purchase of zero and low-emission vehicles, or strengthening other sustainable modes of transport, including public transport, active modes of transport or shared mobility solutions, particularly in rural and remote areas. Investment in zero and low-emission mobility and transport also features in Member States’ resilience and recovery plans, and various other EU funds provide ample possibilities to support the transformation driven by the European Green Deal from different angles: regional funds, the Just Transition Fund, the Modernisation Fund for Lower Income Member States and the Innovation Fund. The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) will contribute equally with EUR 1.5 billion in the next three years to help roll out the necessary infrastructure for citizens to be able to charge their electric cars. Yesterday, the Commission adopted a proposal on a Council recommendation to address the social and labour aspects of the climate transition. The recommendation aims at a fair transition towards climate neutrality to ensure positive employment outcomes and benefits of the green transition, as well as for garnering public support. Regarding transport poverty, we want to better understand and map those in difficulty as a result of increasing costs in transport. We are looking for further research and evidence, better monitoring and assessment of adequate access to essential services, including transport. Transport poverty due to the lack of transport services can also be linked to poor connectivity for remote or rural areas. Yesterday, the Commission also adopted a legislative proposal revising the current TEN-T Regulation that sets the foundation of a European transport infrastructure. Our network should allow seamless mobility and accessibility for all users, in particular people in situations of vulnerability. And, while a local and regional connectivity is certainly a competence of national authorities and administrations that are closer on the ground, we want to improve the accessibility of passengers where local and regional public transport connects with long-distance transport in train stations, ports and airports, with particular attention for vulnerable groups of transport users, including persons with disabilities, with reduced mobility, and people living in remote regions. In the revision of TEN-T we have paid attention to areas in Europe where maritime and air connections play an essential role to ensure connectivity, outermost regions in particular, but not only. The revision ensures a better representation of ports and airports in those regions, and the CEF allows for more favourable conditions for projects, with cofinancing rates up to 70% in outermost regions. Member States also have a tailor-made tool at hand to combat transport poverty granting and, if need be, compensating public-service obligations under non-discriminatory and transparent conditions for the public transport operators. This enables them to provide public transport services essential for connectivity where there is a demand but no supply. It is also important that transport services are not only affordable and available, but also accessible to everyone. For persons with disabilities or with reduced mobility, the main problem in accessing transport services is the lack of accessible vehicles, barriers in transport stations and inadequate transport information systems. I want to thank Parliament again for its support earlier this year when adopting the Regulation for Rail Passengers’ Rights, which gives extended rights to persons with disabilities and reduced mobility. They will now have better access to information. The rules on liability of railway companies have been further reinforced when they take care of the mobility equipment of persons with reduced mobility when travelling, which is critical in their daily life. Now when assessing the current legal framework on passenger rights and TRMs earlier this year, we have found that there are still gaps. While some rules would need clarification, in the coming weeks we will also launch an impact assessment to review the legislative framework on passenger rights and TRMs when using air, water, boat and bus and coach transport, and in addition, will propose legislation by 2022 on the provision and use of commercially sensitive data for multimodal digital mobility services, which will also improve journey planning for persons with reduced mobility. I rest here and I am looking forward to listening to your opinion. I trust that working together we can address this issue which is becoming more and more worrying.