Speeches

Madam President, the announcement of the Windsor framework was a relief, and I can only join the colleagues who congratulated Mr Šefčovič. Thank you very much for the past years of your very patient negotiations. I think all of us remember the last two years of political attacks against the protocol by those who negotiated and signed it on the UK side, and we lost so much time and trust. What is now on the table, I think, is really an acceptable deal. People in Northern Ireland will be able to get their English bread or frozen sausages with minimum overhead for traders. Northern Irish manufacturers will be able to get machine parts or ingredients from Great Britain and sell finished products everywhere in the UK, but also in our internal market. Of course, simplifications require protections. And I also say this as Chair of the Internal Market Committee. The EU access to customs data and our ability to suspend some of the simplifications in case they disfunction is crucial for protecting our single market. In that sense, the new arrangements are clear improvements compared to the current situations where little or no control happened at the entry doors of our single market.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the EU Green Deal is a success story, and so successful that other continents are following suit. Finally, the global race for climate technology and net—zero industry is on. And one way to react to this race is to attempt to solve today’s problems with outdated solutions from the past, like some in this House who seriously want to pause the Green Deal and to massively deregulate. And this is like putting on the bedroom shoes of your grandfather and trying to do a 100—metre sprint. The contrary is true: we need to accelerate our green transition to be at the forefront of this race. The future of the EU industry in our internal market is powered by renewables. It’s emission—free, it’s energy efficient. Clear rules for reducing, recycling and circular business models will not only protect our strategic autonomy, help mitigating the climate crisis, but also bring our companies to the forefront of this global competition. We must use subsidies strategically and focus on key green sectors like batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps and electrolysers. To protect the internal market we also have to ensure European financing of net—zero industries with fresh money. And one of the biggest untapped instruments is public procurement: 14% of our GDP. If we allow procurement authorities to give preference to sustainable goods, we will create a huge market for our green industries. The source of our long—term competitiveness lies in our ability to transform: let us seize it.

Mr President, dear colleagues, if you play with fire next to a haystack, don’t be surprised if the thing catches fire. If you spread lies for months and months about the electoral system that is broken and the elections that will be stolen, don’t act like you’re surprised if those democratic institutions are literally catching fire. So I say to you, Jair Bolsonaro, that the storming of the democratic institutions in Brasília is your personal responsibility, with your attacks on democracy and its defenders, with your lies, with your spreading of hate and your attempts to divide society. Democracies are not only under threat in Brazil, the right wing is also attacking them in the US, in the EU and elsewhere. And the right—wing playbook, like Samira said, is always very similar: they spread fear, anger, fake news with the help of social media platforms built on algorithms, which prefer spreading polarising hate. Let’s counter this with our democratic playbook. We need to do everything in our power to strengthen independent media, foster civil society, boost education and regulate big platforms here and in Brazil. Today, we in the European Parliament stand in full solidarity with the democratically elected government in Brazil, and in full solidarity with all the Brazilians who are defending democracy.

Mr President, dear colleagues, we are celebrating the 30—year anniversary of the single market. I already looked back at the achievements in my first speech, and now I think it is really important that we also look forward in this debate, that we look at the next 30 years. And we also did this with the hearing and the resolution in the IMCO Committee. So, thanks to all the colleagues who also contributed to our debates in our committee to the resolution that we are voting on tomorrow. I want to mention three points where I think we need an update of the single market, where we need to develop it further to really cope with the current challenges. First, we have to speed up the green transition. In this regard, sustainable products have to be the norm on our single market. If all product groups end up complying with minimum sustainability standards, we are making the sustainable choice a default one for the consumers, and this is what they are asking for. And this is why the European Commission needs to deliver on the promised right to repair initiative: to save money, to save energy, to protect our resources, to make our internal market a proper green market. Second, digitisation in the EU must be human—centred, based on our high democratic, data protection and sustainability standards. The Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act are ground—breaking. Digital services are shaping our lives, our democracy. But there is so much left to do to ensure that the rights and freedoms applying offline also apply online. And third, and a lot of colleagues have already mentioned this today, we need better enforcement to make legislation a reality and leverage the single market’s power also globally. European businesses deserve a level playing field with our high standards applied to imports and, in turn, European businesses will profit from European standards that will become a global yardstick. Already now, the single market’s high social and environmental, but also digital, standards spill over and shape globalisation. I am happy that we are taking this time today to debate the future of our single market.

. – Madam President, I think it’s great that we have such a female line up at this ceremony. Dear President, dear Minister, dear Vice-President, dear colleagues, 30 years of the EU’s single market means 30 years of living, working and studying in other EU Member States. It means more prosperity and opportunities for our businesses. Market integration has led to European integration, to citizens growing closer together. And I’m from a generation that can’t remember how it was before. And now I could talk to you about how much GDP growth the internal market has brought us, about trade flows, about increasing competitiveness. And all of this is certainly very, very important. But I rather want to talk about what the single market means to us as citizens. I know some people are convinced that you cannot fall in love with the internal market, and Jacques Delors certainly was one of them. But I have to say, similarly to Margrethe, I get a lot of excited feedback from citizens when I talk to them about our current internal market legislation. With the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, we created democratic rules for the online world. As the first continent worldwide with legislation on circular economy and the right to repair, we are making sustainability the norm in our market. And then – this is really a project to fall in love with – there will be very soon only one common charger in the EU. Can you have a nicer symbol of the EU internal market? These examples show that in the past 30 years, the task of creating a common market has evolved from completing the market with its four freedoms – goods, services, capital and people – to using it more and more to achieve our common political goals: strategic autonomy; a new and unique European model of the digital world; high consumer standards; and, very importantly, the protection of our planet and the climate. And this is also the story that we have to tell to citizens today. Indeed, no one will fall in love with the abstract idea of economic integration. But citizens want high consumer protection standards, a healthy economy, environmental protection. And I think the single market can deliver if we do it in the right way. So if we look back, was everything shiny and rosy in the last years? Certainly not. Several crises have marked the past 30 years and we are right in the middle of one of them. But with each crisis, the single market has evolved. It has proven to be part of the solution. Let me look at that a bit and see what we can learn. I think, to get support from our EU citizens, the single market must protect them. Huge protests all over Europe were the consequence of people believing that the Commission went too far in the market integration with the Services Directive. This Parliament had changed the proposal back in 2006 – made it more balanced. We in this House have successfully fought for a stronger social dimension of the single market in the past years. And I believe we must continue to do so. Brexit, with the UK not only leaving the EU but also the single market, was probably one of the biggest crises for all of us. And, sadly enough, the current performance of the UK economy and the mounting challenges that businesses and citizens face make the rest of the EU even more aware of the benefits of the single market and how dangerous it is to throw everything overboard light-heartedly. During the pandemic, supply chains got heavily disrupted, adding to citizens’ and businesses’ hardships. EU internal borders closed up. We managed to get on our feet again, thanks to the single market, its benefits, its principles protecting European solidarity, common procurement of vaccines, authorising trucks to cross borders to prevent shortages. A common approach to rebuilding the economy. It became obvious once more: we are stronger together. And, dear colleagues, allow me a last point. When it comes to the challenges we are facing right now, I think once again focusing on European cooperation and leveraging the strength of the single market would bring us forward. The climate crisis is looming. The past seven years have been the hottest in the recorded history. And, on the other hand, European companies are not only facing high energy prices, but also fierce global competition to lead the future’s global green economy. Let me be very clear. We cannot prioritise competitiveness over solving the climate crisis. Solutions have to go hand in hand. We need to massively accelerate climate measures and to finance the green transition, which in turn will help European companies. But all of this cannot be at the expense of the single market, with Member States outspending each other. Investing in the single market is the solution, enabling it to be a life jacket for all of us.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister! The energy crisis and the cost of living crisis affect people differently. Many colleagues have already said this today. Consumers who find it particularly difficult, who are particularly vulnerable, are most affected. And even if many measures have already been taken by the Commission, by the Member States: Electricity and heating costs are becoming priceless for some this winter, and more and more people are at risk of power cuts. It's really a terrible idea when we literally leave people in the dark this winter. But to all the right-wingers who now say that the Green Deal or the climate crisis or climate policy is to blame, I say: Call your friend Putin and complain to him! The Green Deal is the solution to our problems of dependence on fossil fuels. And we in the EU are rightly proud of our high level of consumer protection. Right now, the most vulnerable consumers need rules to protect them. It is good that the Commission has facilitated this declaration between consumer associations and energy companies. But all this is neither binding nor long-term. That is why we now need an EU-wide, binding moratorium to prevent electricity blackouts. In the Committee on the Internal Market, we have also adopted a ban on switching off particularly vulnerable consumers when reforming the gas directives, and it is essential that Member States join in the negotiations.

Madam President, dear colleagues, of course, Qatar’s government has made some reforms, has put some efforts into reforming its labour laws and this also shows that international pressure is working. But serious labour laws violations remain. Forced labour and other forms of abuse continue. And so many workers died. And a lot of these cases are not being investigated. Hundreds of thousands of migrant workers have still not been compensated for stolen wages in the past decade. The payment of recruitment fees for migrant workers remains widespread, tying up workers in debt bondage. For me, it is clear: FIFA and the Qatari Government they need to do more, now but also after the attention afforded by the World Cup ends. The most important thing is they need to compensate all workers that got their wages stolen in the run up to the World Cup. It is time for FIFA and Qatar to pay up.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the absolute urgency of moving away from fossil fuels is now finally visible to everyone. I say the Energy Charter Treaty is the most problematic example of a structure that keeps us locked into fossil fuels, that makes us slow down the urgently—needed transition. Dear Commissioner, even under the reformed ECT, three private arbitrators will still have full power to condemn states to pay billions for the offence of curbing climate change. Existing investments in fossil fuels will stay protected for at the very least 10 more years, a period that can easily add up to 20 years with ratification time, and investors will still be able to get compensation for hypothetical lost future profits. We are continuing to give public insurance to stranded assets. If the modernisation ever enters into force for us, it will be as much of a trap as the current treaty, with the 20—year sunset clause remaining, which you also criticised just right now. In the current state of climate emergency these weaknesses of the modernised ECT are not acceptable. Dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I believe it is time to be bold and reconsider the EU’s membership of this treaty. I also think this Parliament should be very clear on this demand in the resolution that we will negotiate for the next plenary.

Madam President, One for all, a cable that can be used to charge all devices – this has been the wish of many consumers here in the European Union for years. And now this wish is finally becoming a reality. In the future, you will no longer have to take three different cables with you for three different devices when you travel. In the future, you will no longer have cable clutter in your drawers. And soon we will save 1000 tons of senseless e-waste per year in the European Union. In this way, we can conserve the climate and resources, and that, dear colleagues, is more important than ever at the moment. Parliament, as our rapporteur Agius Saliba has already said, has made significant improvements to the Commission's proposal. We have achieved that even more devices are included, because this is the only way we can really talk about a universal charging cable. Wireless charging will also be standardized in the future: Not that in a few years there will be different standards on the European market again. In addition: Better information for consumers so they don't have to buy a new cable for every device. Due to pressure from us Greens, the Commission must continue to examine whether cables and devices are not sold completely separately. That would be best for the environment. Parliament has delivered – against numerous lobbying interests and for consumers in the European Union and for the climate. The journey here was long, very long, as many colleagues have already said. For more than ten years, the Commission has been hesitant and hesitant. We must now finally gain a tooth in the circular economy, in all the exciting initiatives that are still in the pipeline, such as the right to repair. The years of struggle for the uniform charging cable has shown: Voluntary work doesn't do much. Clear regulation, legal certainty and predictability are key, including in the interests of businesses. Production, consumption and waste – the economy of our disposable society leads to the exploitation of resources beyond the borders of our planet. If we do not change that, we would need three earths by 2050 to satisfy our hunger for raw materials. This linear economy is fueling the climate crisis, leading to environmental degradation, human rights violations in supply chains. And we make ourselves vulnerable to crises and dependent on raw material imports. It is clear: Our economy needs to change, towards a circular economy. The uniform charging cable is an important step towards this.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, soy fields are everywhere as far as the eye can see. One truck after the other is passing by on the, the soy highway, to get the soy to ports, and huge ships loaded with the grain are going down the Amazon River, transporting the load to Europe or China. This is what I saw when I visited the Amazon recently. Deforestation rates are skyrocketing in Brazil under Bolsonaro, fuelled by his devastating policies but also fuelled by our consumption in the European Union. When I met indigenous leaders in their villages, they told me how their livelihoods are being destroyed, how their land is being invaded, and they ask the EU to help stop this. With this law today, we have the chance to halt deforestation in countries like Brazil, and we must. It’s clear to me, and this was my goal during the legislative process: the more ambitious the law is, the better. That is why we on the IMCO Committee strengthened market surveillance and customs controls – because a law is only as effective as its implementation. We included a strong human rights dimension. I urge all the colleagues in the upcoming vote to not water down the text. This is crucial for the indigenous people in Brazil and for the world’s climate.

Madam President, Dom Phillips, Bruno Pereira, Ari Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau, Maria da Luz Benício, Paulo Paulino Guajajara and many more: all killed in Brazil simply because they defended their home against destruction, against deforestation, against mining, or wanted to write about it, like Dom Phillips. Brazil is the fourth most dangerous place in the world for environmental defenders, and this high number goes hand-in-hand with the highest destruction rates in the Amazon ever. In the first half of 2022 alone, 3 750 square kilometres of rainforest have been destroyed – gone forever. And this is not something that just happens. It is the consequence of an agenda of the Bolsonaro government, such as defunding institutions and weakening environmental legislation. It is the consequence of verbal attacks and intimidation towards environmental defenders by the President himself. And it is also the consequence of an extractivist model that also profits the EU. The EU is, for example, the second biggest importer of Brazilian soy, and thus adds more pressure on the ecosystems in Brazil. And this situation is unbearable and needs to stop. The EU needs to put more pressure on the Bolsonaro government to better protect indigenous people and environmental defenders. The EU has to make its trade policy finally sustainable and its supply chains deforestation-free. And the Brazilian Government has to revoke the dangerous weakening of environmental law and better fund protection agencies. And I ask the Senate not to vote on a package of laws that will further weaken forest protection and indigenous people.

Madam President, the Netherlands are being sued by a foreign investor in front of an international tribunal just because they are exiting dirty coal. The EU itself is being sued by Nord Stream 2, of all companies, just because we regulated our gas market. It becomes clear that we have a problem. The international community has created in the last years a system that has got out of hand. Via investment protection treaties, international companies have got the right to challenge all kinds of democratic decisions in front of private international tribunals, and faced with those threats, Member States have basically two options: they can back away from public policy choices like getting out of fossil fuel, or they risk paying billions of euros in compensation. We saw thousands of citizens protesting in the streets against this perverse system. We saw scholars and judges speaking out for reform. We saw engaged debates in this Parliament. And because of this pressure, the EU’s approach to investment protection and dispute settlement has evolved in the last years. And this is good. The current EU model is better than it used to be and better than that of the Member States. But let me be clear; the Green Deal and the Paris Agreement demand more. They demand we continue to reform, to minimise risks for democracy and to transform our economy towards decarbonisation without a giant price tag. And this is exactly what we are doing in this report. We, as parliamentarians, are proposing today a new reformed model for the EU’s investment policy. First, we suggest in the report to end the protection of investments in fossil fuels or any other activities that pose significant harm to the environment and human rights – and cases against climate policies keep on piling up, delaying action, and costing millions to taxpayers. Investment must be channelled towards sustainable activities and away from those which are cooking our planet. Second, we want to stop giving a blank cheque to international investors to just sue states whenever they like. International investors should first need to go through national courts before using arbitration. We must cap the damage that can be awarded so that taxpayers do not risk having to pay billions to corporations. We demand narrower protection standards to limit abusive cases. In short, we must protect our ability to make laws and regulations. Third, the report takes a clear position on the Energy Charter Treaty. That is such a big problem for our climate policies and today we say, crystal clear, an empty deal cannot satisfy this Parliament, we need to exit this dirty treaty. I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for the excellent cooperation on this report. We reached, I think, an outcome that is balanced but bold, forward-looking, and shows also how relevant the European Parliament is on this topic, where we as parliamentarians unfortunately do not sit at the table during the negotiations on investment agreements. I call on the Commission and the Member States to take the demands of this report very seriously and adopt this as the new EU approach. Our report clearly asks Member States to terminate or modernise their old bilateral investment treaties. So, investment policy can be a very powerful tool. Let us use it for the benefit of all of us.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I do not want to buy products made by Uyghurs in detention camps. I do not want to see products made by workers in debt bondage in Malaysia on the EU single market. And the European Parliament is united and clear: the EU needs to act. Forced labour must be banned and consumers must know they are not buying products of modern slavery. And for that it is really, really important how the instrument looks like, because the devil is in the detail. In our resolution that was carried by all the Groups and a very broad majority in the Trade Committee, we demand to properly ban products linked to forced labour, not only a watered—down product—withdraw mechanism like the Commission is discussing it. We want the instrument to be remedy—centred, because the idea is that we help the workers that are in modern slavery. The instrument needs to be encompassing and should not exclude certain businesses. I thank President von der Leyen very much that she, in her initiative last year, in her speech of the Union, announced this instrument, but in order for this to not be like an empty promise, and that we don’t have another 10 years, the Commission needs to come now with an instrument that is effective and that will work for the people currently in forced labour. So we need to make the EU a driving force in banning forced labour globally.

Madam President, we Greens are happy that the international procurement instrument has the strength to ensure that third—country operators cannot get favoured when they use unfair practices, like, for example, in the case with China. A lot of colleagues said it already: the instrument is an important piece of the toolbox to rebalance economic relations with countries like China in a way that benefits the EU. However, we Greens are a bit disappointed that the Commission, most of the Member States and some political groups have not been supportive of an exemption beyond least—developed countries. Procurement is an important tool for poorer countries to steer their industrial development, and this is also what the EU Member States have been allowed to do for decades. Another point: social and environmental dumping is also an unfair practice. During the negotiations with the Council, it became clear that certain provisions on social and environmental standards in the EU Procurement Directive have never been used, and I think this is really a missed opportunity. I think the EU and the Member States have to get serious about applying the rules on truly sustainable procurement, and those rules should also be part of reciprocity considerations with third countries.

Madam President, not even three years – that is the average amount of time we, as consumers, use a mobile phone. There is rare earth in the phone, silicon and plastics, 60 different kinds of metals dug in faraway mines and shipped around the world. Some of them even come from Russia, where we painfully feel now how bad such a dependency can be. All smart phones together in Europe are responsible for 40 million tonnes of emissions each year. This is more than the carbon budget of Latvia. Yet most of us throw this precious device away after not even three years, and the result of this is 4 billion tonnes of electronic waste per year in the EU alone and the fastest growing waste stream in the world. This can no longer go on; the linear economy has to come to an end. We have to start thinking and producing in circles. After years of just talking about it and some cosmetic reforms, we finally need a true circular economy. Last week, the European Commission presented the ecodesign for sustainable products regulation. Mandatory sustainability criteria for all products in the single market – this can be the end of the throwaway society. The digital product passport and better information for consumers will create transparency along the supply chains and improve consumer choice. Future products made in the EU will be longer-lasting and recyclable, and innovative businesses will have new market chances. I highly welcome these overdue steps, and I think we really can come to a proper, sustainable single market with that. But it is not enough. If you have already tried to have your broken coffee machine repaired, you might have experienced that the shop does not take it back or the repair shop of your choice is not licensed to do it. It doesn’t have the spare parts, or the manual. And if you were lucky to find a repairer able to do it, it would be very costly and affect your legal guarantee. Another example: a few months ago, a tiny plastic handle broke off from my fridge. I called the shop and the only option they offered me was to replace the entire fridge – the entire fridge because of a tiny little plastic device. We want to put an end to this. Today, the European Parliament demands a proper right to repair for consumers. We want to enable consumers to make a sustainable choice. We want to give consumers the right to choose to repair their products. We want to empower them to play their part in the green transition. And do you know what? Seventy—nine percent of EU citizens want the right to repair. Today the European Parliament lives up to these expectations. There is a proper repair culture emerging all over Europe, or should I say, re—emerging because the older generations know repair much better than I would probably do. For me, it is beautiful to see, when I visit repair shops all over Germany that older retired citizens are showing young people how to repair electric devices or how hackerspaces collect old computers and make them fit again. In our resolution today, we ask the Commission to present a right to repair for exactly all of those people, all of those EU citizens who want to repair. All actors in the repair sector and consumers must have access to spare parts, to manuals and to software updates at a reasonable cost. Consumers must be able to recognise a product’s durability and repairability on easily readable labels while standing in the shop and wondering what to buy. Consumers need more incentives under the Sales of Goods Directive to actually choose repair over replacement and a longer legal guarantee for certain products. We also demand to take a look at enhanced producer liability because, in the end, producers must be responsible for the product. So, more sustainable products and more rights to consumers have to go hand in hand. Consumers must become the driving force of the green transition of the sustainable single market. I thank all the colleagues in the IMCO Committee very much for the very good cooperation and hope we have a strong majority today for our resolution.

Mr President, I think the absolute urgency of moving away from fossil fuels is finally visible to all. We realise how much we need the policy sphere, public money and strategic private investment to make the shift away from fossil fuels to renewable happen. Yet, the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is keeping us back, and I think we have a big, big unity on that in the European Union. And it’s good. Millions and millions of euro in lost public money, the litigation, the threat of expensive cases, and the changes that did not happen because of said threats. The ECT is a danger for the Green Deal and the energy transition, and we need an urgent solution to this problem. Many colleagues mentioned this today. I applaud the Commission for trying to modernise the ECT, but I fear the modernisation is not delivering. It is too little. It is too late. The US is pushing for an ECT reform that is not compatible with the Paris Agreement and the possible landing zones that are identified by the negotiators are even significantly weaker. Fossil fuel protection will not end with this proposal. So I believe it is really time to free our governments from the really irrational, irresponsible shackles of the ECT. A coordinated exit is legally not very complex to organise. All it needs is political will. I urge you to exit this treaty, neutralise its sunset clause, and get on with the fastest shift away from fossil fuels that we can make happen. Two questions to conclude, because I think they were not really answered in your introduction. Are you already preparing this exit? It is too late for us to notice in June that we don’t have a modernised approach. Are you already coordinating and preparing the exit? And can we as Parliament have access to all the negotiation documents?

. – Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Many of us probably have mountains of clothes at home that we sometimes don't even use anymore. But what happens to these clothes? The numbers are really damning. Worldwide, less than 1% of clothing is recycled, but more and more is produced, sold, bought. And this is really interesting: We are no longer talking about fast fashion, but from superfast fashion. The ecological footprint is huge. The textile sector – and this has just been said – accounts for one tenth of global CO2 emissions. For the production of a t-shirt alone, we need 2700 liters of water. A man would be able to quench his thirst for two years. The textile industry also stands like no other sector symbolically for the disposable society and the injustice in the global economy. We all know the pictures of workers – yes, above all women – sitting close to the sewing machines. No daylight, chord work instead. And as long as corporations place low-paid orders at the last minute or cancel them again, working conditions remain precarious. These problems show that a strategy for sustainable textiles must address both ecological and human rights issues. The textile strategy – as many colleagues have said today – must not only talk about announcements and beautiful words, but also concrete legal regulations must be put in place. We also need a real circular economy for textiles on our internal market, longer durability, effective reduction targets for material consumption and emissions, and also high collection rates and finally more recycling and recycling! Consumers need to understand the environmental footprint of the jeans or jacket they buy. And for that, we need an electronic product passport that informs us exactly about it, and I am glad, Commissioner, that you have announced this. One last point: There is already a directive against unfair trading practices in the agri-food sector. I think such a rule is absolutely necessary for the textile sector as well.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, The decarbonisation of our economy, the phasing out of fossil fuels and the massive expansion of renewable energies – since Putin’s terrible war of aggression against Ukraine has become, I believe, also clear to the latter that we need the green transformation not only for our climate, but also for our strategic sovereignty. And batteries are the crucial building block for this transformation. Huge industrial batteries store the renewable electricity generated and enable it to be fed into the power grid. Battery-powered vehicles are displacing diesel and gasoline engines from European roads, even if the AfD does not like that. Currently, 90% of batteries are imported into the EU. Whether imported or manufactured, all these batteries require raw materials and their removal often leads to human rights violations and environmental degradation. I have advocated – and we have worked hard in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection – for the Battery Regulation to be strengthened and for human rights and the environment along supply chains to be obligatory. And this is also important news for citizens, who keep saying: Yes, I want an electric car, but I don't want batteries with blood on them. We in Parliament have made sure that batteries will last longer. And we have created a right to repair equipment with batteries. With this, we can finally say goodbye to glued batteries and use devices longer if the battery should give up the ghost. We have improved the Commission proposal so that all batteries sold on the internal market are produced with clean energy. After all, 70% of a battery's emissions come from the production phase, and many batteries are now made with coal power and other fossil fuels. With this battery regulation, we are paving the way for a true circular economy in which the raw materials in old batteries and devices are systematically recovered, recycled and recycled. We should do this with all products as soon as possible – for a genuine green single market.

Madam President, Mr Borrell, ladies and gentlemen. Of course, when we talk about EU-Africa relations, we have to talk about the unfair distribution of vaccines. While people in Europe are fortunately triple vaccinated, so far only 12% of people in Africa have been vaccinated – 12%. And rightly so, the African states are calling for the temporary suspension of vaccination patents on the occasion of this EU-Africa summit. And, frankly, the Commission is still refusing to release the patents – I think this is a testament to poverty for the Commission. And, frankly, it is also a disregard for this Parliament. We have already decided on patent approval twice here in this plenary session. And we MEPs are not alone: The US and more than 100 other states support patent clearance, including several EU member states. And this alliance is clear: Patent approval will not harm our pharmaceutical industry if we put this right on the rails. But it is the only way to quickly overcome the pandemic together. We've already lost way too much time. I therefore expect the Commission, as well as you and, of course, the Member States, which are not yet convinced to finally join these arguments.

Mr President, indeed, I hereby request the referral back of the Digital Service Act file to the committee for starting interinstitutional negotiations according to Rule 59(4).

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In my home region in Saxony, social media is used to infiltrate the corona protests of right-wing radicals, and Telegram is used to forge murder plans for politicians. This is destructive to democracy, and we can no longer accept it. But simply blocking services like Telegram would be exactly the wrong way: Don't shoot the messenger! What we need instead are clear, democratically written rules for the online world. And all over Europe, because hatred and hate speech on the net are increasing not only in Saxony, not only in Germany. The Digital Services Act creates these much-needed rules for dealing with illegal content and with transparency requirements for platform algorithms. Because since Frances Haugen at the latest, we know that hate posts are especially being pushed by Facebook for profit reasons. And this law will be the framework to tackle hatred and hate speech across the Digital Single Market. In the parliamentary negotiations, it was achieved that these rules now also apply to Telegram. Such messenger services, in which large, open groups operate, should fall under the rules of the DSA, i.e. be subject to the reporting obligation for criminal content, as well as Facebook, Twitter and Co. We must keep this line in negotiations with the Council and the Commission. In the end, we create an instrument with which we can finally defend democracy online.

Mr President, dear Minister, dear colleagues, I think there’s one country that was extremely successful when it comes to addressing some of the challenges related to Corona, and that is South Africa, where the scientists made a great job in sequencing the new variant, Omicron. And there’s one country that was extremely transparent in this pandemic. That is South Africa, because it let the world know immediately about the new variant. And now the economies of South African countries are down again, after a careful recovery because the travel bans that have been introduced have hit the countries hard. Yes, we need to fight the spread of the new variant. Yes, we need to make sure that EU citizens are protected from a new wave. But the EU needs to put in place proportionate measures instead of punishing the most transparent and co-operative countries. The EU needs to consult before we take decisions like travel bans, and also apply no stricter measures to certain countries just because they lie on the African continent. And last but not least, we finally need global vaccination justice and therefore finally an EU position in favour of the TRIPS waiver.

Mr President, the holiday season is just around the corner, and many of you are probably thinking about what to give to your loved ones as presents. And you might think about shiny diamonds, but some of those shimmery diamonds bear a dirty secret. They are blood diamonds, and they are extracted under unbearable conditions. The good news is, with the Kimberley Process, the international community has created a tool to fight blood diamonds. The bad news is that the system is far from perfect. First of all – and many colleagues have mentioned this today – it does not guarantee that the diamonds sold in the EU are fully ethical because they might still be linked to human rights violations or environmental damage. The diamond mining sector often displaces communities. It often pollutes the rivers people use for their livelihoods. Secondly, the Kimberley Process only applies to rough diamonds, which leaves cut and polished diamonds completely unaddressed. We need to make sure that the Kimberley Process applies to all diamonds and that it acts against all human rights risks, not just those which are related to conflict and rebel movements. As you said, the EU cannot of course change the Kimberley Process on its own. It requires consensus amongst all participating states. But what the EU can do is act alone whenever the Kimberley Process leaves gaps. As a major centre for diamond trade, we can introduce laws or amend existing laws such as the Kimberley Regulation or the Conflict Minerals Regulation, to make sure that diamond sourcing is in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This is exactly what this strong resolution is asking, and I sincerely hope that the Commission will listen to our demands and finally make diamonds ethical.

Mr President, some very few powerful tech platforms currently dictate the rules on the Digital Single Market, and we all know the consequences. It is impossible to uninstall an app on your phone, although you want to use a different one, let’s say ‘maps’. You search online for a certain Christmas present you want to give to a friend, and the first Google search result leads you to Google, or you want to use a messenger that satisfies your need for the protection of your personal data, but all your friends mostly use another service. The Digital Markets Act will put an end to the dominance of a few Big Tech giants and give back true choice to the consumers. And not only consumers, but also alternative business models where small and medium sized companies will profit. I think today is a good day because we finally set democratic rules for the online world. I could have personally even gone a little bit further, but I think the DMA is a very good step in the right direction, and I really want to also thank you, Mr Schwab, our rapporteur in the committee, all the shadow rapporteurs and all the rapporteurs of the opinion-giving committees.

Madam President, only 5 % of people in low—income countries have received a first dose of the vaccine, not because they do not want to have the vaccine, but because there are not enough vaccines available to them. This is a shame. It has been more than a year since South Africa and India put forward the proposals for TRIPS waiver. A lot of colleagues have mentioned it already. They called for this in order to protect their citizens from the virus, and this is quite a legitimate reason. And yet, the Commission continues to oppose this lifesaving proposals, despite a clear demand from this Parliament. We need to keep in mind the waiver would be only temporary. There has already been so much money put into the vaccine. Charity approaches like COVAX alone are not enough. The pandemic really requires exceptional and brave decisions if we really want to fight it. I urge you to support the TRIPS waiver next week.