What Jens spoke about.

Mr President! To Minister Raouna for her opinion: I underline what you have said, that Europe must find its way out of dependencies. I support that. The fossils are number one. But if I follow the debate here and then hear again and again that we have to find our way back to the wider use of nuclear energy, I have to ask myself: Aren't we also importing uranium? Aren't we also dependent on uranium imports? Or have we been doing this ourselves in Europe lately? According to figures from this House’s Research Service, in 2023 – the most recent figures to be found – around a quarter of uranium imports used in Europe came from Russia. So we also co-financed the Russian war machine. And some nuclear power operators have even stocked up after the start of the war so that they can use it for a long time. I believe that the way the Commission has described to us is the right one. We need to speed up at this point. We must become independent of energy, but also of nuclear energy.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur: Dear Anna, this is a great report, which gives us a lot of material for further work on the energy transition, because we have to put an end to the inefficiencies, inefficiencies in the electricity grid in Europe. For this, we need Europe-wide networking – this is our task here to ensure this and to lay the foundations for it. That is why, as the report points out, we must also think together about decarbonisation and digitalisation in the future; This is a social and economic mission. It is a good thing that the European Investment Bank will provide a EUR 1.5 billion guarantee guarantee to support the manufacturers of components for the electricity grid. This creates growth and jobs and, in the end, additional security of supply. It is also central for the Commission to present its recommendations for the harmonised methodology for the calculation of network guarantees. This has been promised to us, Commissioner, for the second quarter, and this quarter will end the following week. Keeping grid charges under control is important, because it does not matter whether households and the economy suffer from high electricity prices or high grid charges. The bills must not remain so high. High energy costs are a crucial social issue and we need to solve them for the climate, for people and for jobs.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In a modern society, energy supply must be secure and low prices must be guaranteed. I hear that wholesale gas prices are back to pre-war levels. But as far as I can see, this has not yet arrived at the level of consumers and the economy. Therefore, for the S&D Group, the starting point was clear: If we extend the European gas storage regime, it must not send false price signals. If, as was previously the case in the Annex, it is clear which Member State is filling what percentage of its storage at what time, then this is an invitation to increase prices – one could also say about price driving. Therefore, it was important to make the time periods more flexible and to reduce the storage levels with a sense of proportion. If we see gas importers not achieving the goal of guaranteeing security of supply, then we face severe penalties. These are the conditions with which we are going into the negotiations for the trilogue. And then we hope for a lot of support from the Member States.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! How much money is in question here? If we look at the current budget of the European Union, it is payments, then money of EUR 199.4 billion has been committed. In fact, EUR 155 billion in payments will go over the table this year. And to put that into perspective: This is roughly the state budget of North Rhine-Westphalia times 1.5. So we are not talking about insane amounts, we are talking about money, which finances politics in the European Union, and I say clearly: It would be nice if there were more. Because we could pay significantly more research, for example: The experts who evaluate the research applications received by the European Union recommend seven times more research applications for funding than the EU can finance. And as far as I know, innovation is now also something that contributes to Europe's competitiveness. What needs to happen is: We need a bigger budget. Member States must agree on this. And we need additional own resources that can finance that.

Madam President, Mr Minister, Mr Executive Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! The energy price is crucial for the competitiveness of key sectors of European industry, and the energy price is also crucial for the quality of life of many families. That is why energy prices need to fall. In the past, fossil fuel power plants were built where demand was. Today, we produce renewable electricity where we have a lot of wind and a lot of sunny days. I would be pleased, Mr Executive Vice-President, if the European Commission would pay even more attention to geothermal energy. Colleagues! The transition to renewable energies and a European internal energy market make it necessary to develop electricity lines and pipelines for hydrogen. This draws attention to the network fees of the future. These must not become the next price driver for energy prices, which is why we need industry-friendly measures and proposals from the Commission to keep grid fees under control.

Madam President, Mr Minister, Mr Executive Vice-President Séjourné, ladies and gentlemen! I would like to thank the Commission for presenting the Steel Action Plan, which I have long called for together with many colleagues. But you already had a good proposal, Mr Séjourné; and for which I would like to thank IndustriALL and Eurofer, and I am pleased to have been able to assist in the preparation of this draft action plan. This plan of action has some good sides. The problems are identified and addressed, e.g. the need to sharpen our trading instruments. I am particularly pleased about the assurance of a succession arrangement for the so-called safeguards from the middle of next year. And the weaknesses of the CBAM, the border tax on carbon, have also been identified and are to be eliminated. What I still don't like so much: We have an electricity market design in Europe that does not yet allow an industrial electricity price, but must continue to be applied for by Member States in order to be examined by the Commission in Brussels according to long-outdated criteria. And therefore my request to you, Mr Séjourné: Please check very carefully and tell us whether the Commission will tackle this issue again. And now implement, implement, implement, because steel is the future.

Madam President, Vice-President Séjourné, ladies and gentlemen! I would like to thank the European Commission for presenting this Clean industrial dealsI am pleased that the Commission has announced serious steps to improve the competitive situation of European industry. On the positive side, the Commission is making a proposal from a single source instead of creating the usual hack between DGs. It would be good, Mr Séjourné, if the Commission could overcome the time of political solutions from individual silos. However, I am not sure whether parts of the industry still have time before the Commission's measures begin to take effect. With the proposal for lead markets for decarbonised products such as steel, the Commission is taking an important step forward, allowing not only stronger national aid but also linking public procurement to other criteria. But will the critical feature be local production or decarbonised European production? Therefore, in order to clarify this, we now need very, very quickly the Acceleration Act for the final carbonization of industry, as soon as possible.

Madam President, My first sentence also goes to you, Madam Simson, thank you very much for your work in the European Commission. You have always been a fair, open and talkative partner to the Energy Committee. I thank you for that. Ladies and gentlemen, to the right of the EPP there is a debate that the European Commission is somehow the cause of high energy prices. In fact, the first energy price shock coincided with the rebound of the global economy after the peak of the pandemic, and the second price shock coincided, of course, with Russia's attack on Ukraine. On the other hand: The sun shines in vain and the wind blows in vain. But we need powerful, smart grids to distribute this energy – and, of course, across borders. Of course, it would make no sense to replace high energy costs with high grid costs. Public budgets will then have to temporarily reduce network tariffs. And in the case of the dark doldrums – yes, there are – a modern power plant reserve makes the difference, which can be operated, for example, with green gases – plus powerful storage technologies, for example, with hydrogen. And to all those who believe in nuclear power: German energy managers tell me that they do not want to return to nuclear energy in any way. It's too expensive.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The European steel industry faces a wide range of problems and challenges. Energy prices remain too high after the shocks of Covid and Russia's war of aggression. Global overcapacity in steel production is putting pressure on markets – both on third markets and on our European single market. And in order to make a major contribution to protecting the climate, the European steel industry is starting the transition from blast furnace to production with clean gases and green electricity. To meet these challenges, the European steel industry needs help. It needs better trade protection, competitive and reliable energy prices, and public investment assistance. I am very pleased that, at my request, the social partners in the steel industry, IndustriALL on the trade union side and EUROFER, have drawn up an action programme for steel, for which I am now seeking support from this House. Our aim should be for Vice-President-designate Séjourné to be able to see and respond to the support of such an action plan in this House before his hearing. I don't want to have to ask him about it.

Mr President! I am pleased that the Presidency has now also arrived. At the beginning of my final contribution, I would like to thank all shadow rapporteurs once again. It was two years of work, but it was a pleasing work, and you did not make it any harder than absolutely necessary for me, frankly. It goes without saying that we have different views in the political groups, but I think we have come up with a compromise that can be seen and that will also find a broad majority. I would like to thank the team that supported me – the committee secretariat, my group, especially my parliamentary colleague Verena Hof, without whom this report would not have been possible. Now Mrs Toussaint is unfortunately gone, but I want to use my remaining speaking time to address you very clearly once again, because you say that the gas package does not do anything for the climate; I must strongly disagree with you. We certainly agree on the need to reduce CO2 emissions, as radically as possible. What is wrong with replacing natural gas with low-carbon hydrogen and saving CO2? I don't think that would be good for the climate. They say science wants us to get out of burning gas in 2035. I tell you that I want to get out as early as possible – if I can, maybe even earlier. But I don't know if it will work today. And in the end, what we are proposing here must also work in Europe. I think it's not about headlines, it's about viable solutions for climate protection. What you would have asked for at the end of the day would have meant that gas transporters today would have to set aside money to write off their gas networks, because they will be told that from 2035 this will be prohibited; They would then have even less money to invest in decarbonised networks. I think it's about getting results, not creating headlines, and that's why I think we're going the right way here.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is appropriate to start by thanking Jerzy Buzek for his great work in the context of what we are discussing this morning. He was the rapporteur for the Gas Market Regulation, he was my shadow rapporteur for the Gas Market Directive, and I believe we could not have worked together better than we did. I want to follow his theme and start with the methane. It is important that we have found this regulation. This is central to reducing methane emissions worldwide because methane is the more dangerous climate killer than CO2, but it is important, and it is especially important for Social Democrats and trade unionists to do it in such a way that people are not afraid of this step. It was important to me, especially as someone who comes from the Ruhr area – and North Rhine-Westphalia is a partner region of Silesia – to help ensure that Silesian mining can maintain its phase-out plans and that jobs are not lost, but at the same time methane is reduced. When it comes to electricity market design, it is important that we ensure the competitiveness of our energy-intensive industry, which can act in the event of price shocks such as those we have experienced due to COVID and the Russian war of aggression. I say clearly that I would have liked us to have come up with a system that could have secured an industrial electricity price at European level, leaving it not only to the Member States to ask the Commission for a State aid permit, but also to enable the European side to do so. I think that would have brought a lot of security to the change in the industry. Now on to hydrogen. I am glad that the energy-intensive industry, which is difficult to decarbonise – I am talking about the chemical industry, I am talking about steel – has succeeded in putting it at the centre of change and, as far as possible in this context, in promoting that these industries are the first to have access to hydrogen. We put this letter of intent at the beginning of the directive. In network planning, we have made it very important that this can be done in this way, and my proposal for the future, if we are in the auctions for hydrogen in the future, would be that we have a special basket in which bids can be made for the energy-intensive industry, and exclusively for it. It was important to reduce investment hurdles. I must say, Commissioner, that your House has treated Europe like an undiscovered continent when it comes to gas – as if we had no companies, as if we had no pipelines, as if there were no distribution and transport network operators willing to transform. The proposal, which was from the Commission, would not have been a tool to ensure hydrogen build-up, but the exact opposite. That's why we've completely changed the unbundling rules and adapted them to what we know about gas. Finally, it is very important for me to say: We have included network planning in this directive, which allows local authorities to operate sector coupling and see where we have energy sources that we can use. This will help to reduce the demand for natural gas, i.e. for fossil fuel, and make redundant parts of the network, which are then at some point expressly reserved for the transport of hydrogen. Finally: What we now need from the Commission is the delegated act on low-carbon hydrogen, a reliable certification that at the same time allows us to provide sufficient hydrogen, but does not lose sight of the target perspective of green hydrogen from renewable sources.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, dear representative of the Council, ladies and gentlemen! More equipment, capacity building, cooperation in the defence industry, maintaining Ukraine’s defence capacity in the fight against imperialist Russia – all this is right. What will not work: Investing in defense and recommending everyone else to defer their claims. Because that will tear our societies apart. Making energy supply and industry climate-damaging costs money. Getting children out of poverty costs money. Providing affordable housing costs money. Digitalisation, innovation, infrastructure all cost money. Investments will not be represented by households, and it will not be possible without loans. The EU must respond to all these needs and its Member States must respond appropriately – without calling for austerity and debt brakes.

Mr President, Vice-President Šefčovič, ladies and gentlemen! For almost two years, Putin has been waging war in Europe against the Ukrainian people and their freedom – two years too much. But the EU's message to the imperialists in the Kremlin is clear: We support Ukraine as long as Putin needs it. I would like to thank Chancellor Scholz personally for making this possible, including for sending Viktor Orbán to drink coffee. The German Federal Government has not only been repeatedly attacked by the EPP from this point – again today – for the fact that Germany’s performance for Ukraine is allegedly too small. That has always been inaccurate. But today it is important to note at this point that no other state of the EU does more to maintain Ukraine's defence capabilities than the Federal Republic of Germany. My request would be to you, ladies and gentlemen: Please make sure that your governments also increase their efforts in this area. This includes, institutionally, the renunciation of unanimity in foreign and security policy decisions in the Council of the European Union. This would be the decisive means against blackmailers from within and a decisive signal of the EU's will to secure its sovereignty.

Mr President, Commissioner Breton, ladies and gentlemen! Wind turbines, electric cars, mobile phones, computers, space travel – for most of the products of the future, European production relies on raw materials that need to be imported. Because we probably won't constantly see the successes we had at the beginning of the year, when the largest European rare earth deposit to date was discovered in Sweden. Prospecting must continue. That's why it's good that the approval deadlines have been reduced, but mining is not sustainable, of course, because nothing grows back. As a Social Democrat, I am pleased with the high occupational safety and health and environmental standards that have been set in this area. Recycling is sustainable. The goal must be that 25 percent of Europe's needs are met in this way. I am happy to come from a region in Germany, from North Rhine-Westphalia, where the technology and the company's staff are already very exemplary. Research into substitution products must also be possible. Wouldn't it be great to replace lithium with sodium? All of this can reduce European dependence. The more independent Europe becomes, the more we limit the power of dictators, autocrats and warlords, and that would be good news for the world.

Madam President, honourable Members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen! Now a little bit of another soundtrack comes in here. Welcome to the European Parliament on behalf of your SPD MPs, dear Olaf, dear Chancellor! Yes, Mr Weber, that sounds like Germany has a chancellor who has ideas about the European Union. I would like to remind you once again that, unfortunately, we have never had the opportunity to deal with Mrs Merkel's basic European political positions. And the personal silence, the embarrassing silence of Ms Merkel on President Macron's Sorbonne speech, demonstrated to the whole continent what the beautiful German word of the ‘roaring silence’ really means. But Chancellor Scholz has suggested talking about the future, and I would like to do so. The remnants of unanimity in the Council are indeed an essential, retarding element. Many people are thinking about foreign policy, but I want to point out the taxes: How many problems could we solve if we could put together a European tax package for energy, in terms of energy costs for people and also for European industry in the transition to climate neutrality?

Mr President, Commissioner Simson, ladies and gentlemen. I am happy that five groups support tomorrow's proposal. I believe that this proposal deserves this too; because this broad support has become possible because this proposal achieves two things: It is an ambitious approach to reduce the emission of a gas with significant potential to endanger the climate, and it has succeeded in not jeopardising jobs and economic activities. I want to make this clear using the example of Polish mining, as Mrs Spyraki has just done. There are two guiding principles underpinning this proposal: One was not to jeopardize the already existing plan in Poland to phase out mining. Social security for Polish miners and the prevention of a social break, especially in the Silesian areas, were particularly important to my group, the Socialist Group, in order not to jeopardise the social consensus for climate protection in this important Member State. As part of this plan, a reduction in methane emissions from the active shaft plants can also be achieved there. Yes, I am a little proud that I was able to put forward this proposal and, of course, received the support of the other shadow rapporteurs and the rapporteur himself. Ladies and gentlemen, the Socialist Group supports the proposal on the methane regulation and we will vote in favour of it tomorrow.

Mr President, honourable Commissioner, honourable Madam President, honourable Members! In a few days, as many colleagues have said, Russia’s criminal attack on Ukraine will mark its first anniversary, and I can only bow in respect to the bravery and the will to freedom of the Ukrainian people. Slava Ukrajini! It is up to the EU, as Josep Borrell has said, to strengthen this will for freedom by giving Ukraine the means it needs: financial resources, humanitarian aid, military aid. It is important to me to emphasize all these things, because they belong together. Against this background, I wonder what role the numerous calls for arms deliveries to Germany had and still have – many of them in this plenary session. After the conditions have been created, namely a joint action of the NATO allies, Germany delivers Leopard 2 tanks in the dozen and Leopard 1 tanks in the hundreds. Where are the allies? Asked about the pledges of the allies - the so-called Panzerkoalition - the German Minister of Defence says: That's not so intoxicating. And so that we don't misunderstand each other: In German, this is an ironic expression of the fact that the promises have so far been extremely clear. Poland, Norway and Portugal help, but there is much more to come. Support for Ukraine must be a shared responsibility. And if Germany does so according to its capabilities, then the allies should stop hiding behind it.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Minister Bek, ladies and gentlemen! Minister Bek, you have presented us with the agenda of the next European Council. I would like to thank you very much for that. It is good that the Council wants to address all these pressing issues. That's right, of course. But how? And that's what I'd like to hear from you: How do you assess the prospects of reaching an agreement? Madam President von der Leyen or, on behalf of the Vice-President, I would like to expressly support your proposals for a revision of the State aid rules. We are indeed in a phase of fundamental transformation of our industrial societies. It takes place on the one hand under the conditions of global competition and on the other hand under the conditions of the Russian war of aggression. At my home in the Ruhr area, we would describe it this way: We have to change the wheels of the locomotive at full speed. The right tool for this is not one that is only capable of preventing monopolies in the European single market. I also support the proposal for a Sovereignty Fund. Anyone sitting in this House in the Committee on Budgets knows that the EU budget is only twice as large as that of North Rhine-Westphalia and not even half as large as the budget of the Federal Republic of Germany. That is why we need a new instrument such as the Sovereignty Fund: If the European locomotive needs new wheels, then we must also be able to buy them.

Madam President, dear Vice-President, dear Frans, dear colleagues! Mr Timmermans, you said quite rightly in your opening that there is no less expensive energy than renewables. Indeed, and this has been stated many times here, they are the answer to the price crisis that Russia caused by its war – if only we had it. We need renewables plus hydrogen as a storage medium, as soon as possible. Therefore, it is right for us to ensure that permitting procedures are accelerated without completely eliminating nature conservation. Then comes the Christian Democrats. Not only do you completely tear down the barriers to nature conservation – which you have never really liked – but you also want to challenge the decisions already reached in late summer through the back door, which you actually do not like. Once again: We need ambitious decisions and acceleration, not the endless repetition of debates that have already been decided.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister Bek, ladies and gentlemen! Since Russia used energy as a weapon, a new question has arisen: How does the energy supply, especially with natural gas, work for the few years until sufficient renewable energy will be available? Yes, there will have to be additional gas infrastructure in the short term, and unfinished business is now falling to our feet in the EU. Commissioner Simson, you have pointed to a number of newly created interconnectors, and you have quietly added that Member States are now abandoning the foreclosure of their energy markets. This is a good thing, and it was long overdue, because now the tasks are bigger and more urgent than protecting one's own markets. Member States must be able to supply and support each other in the event of energy shortages. But it is important that the new gas infrastructure that is being built must be ready to transport hydrogen, otherwise these investments will become obsolete in a few years. Therefore, public funding should only be available if the new infrastructure is also suitable for hydrogen.