What Karima spoke about.

Mr. Member, I answer: we are not responsible for air pollution. Air pollution is caused by diesel and, as the WHO says, ‘diesel is carcinogenic’. Today, you talk about France. France has increased from 65,000 to 79,000 premature deaths each year. You think we're gonna sit idly by? No, no. As for our automotive industry, I repeat, it is not as efficient as it should have been, because, precisely, we are competing with China, we are competing with the United States, which has taken the transition, especially with electric vehicles. (The Chair withdrew the floor from the speaker)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must say how angry I am. Seven years ago, when we came out of ‘dieselgate’, we all agreed. We said: Never again! No more garbage vehicles!" We said: We, politicians, legislators, take the measure of the health scandal and take exemplary measures for our fellow citizens. We are talking about 300,000 air pollution victims every year – 300,000 people! Seven years later, the elephant gave birth to a mouse. Euro 7 is a discounted standard, which changes nothing or very little. As you know, this is the last standard for thermal vehicles that we will have, as the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles is stopped in 2035. In fact, this means that, until 2050, we will still have 100 million trash vehicles. You will explain your vote in your electoral campaigns in your countries. You will in no way find my support for such a mess. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, je voudrais remercier mes corapporteurs. Le résultat de ce rapport n’est pas à la hauteur des enjeux, je vous le dis. The Europe that protects, that saves lives, is not really embodied in this report. We had to show just how much support and support we had for families and victims. Even if this report is adopted, I consider that it is not up to the challenge. I would still like to thank you because the debate has taken place and I am a democrat, but the , the fallacious arguments, the will to denigrate what Europe can do will never be accepted. And I tell you, even if this report is not up to par, I will fight to the end to save lives. Thank you Pauline Déroulède, thank you Floraine Jullian, thank you to the victims, and we will continue to fight because life is priceless.

Ladies and gentlemen, many have not read the text! In the text, there is no longer any question of a permit, in particular SUVs or other permits. On the other hand, Mr Deli, you mentioned the issue of a tractor licence. I did not set it up, it was the EPP. And I guarantee you that there will be a deletion amendment, especially at this time. I would like to tell you, each and every one of you in this Chamber, that it only takes one second for your life or that of one of your loved ones to change. Whole lives are broken! I am thinking of Pauline Déroulède, Floraine Jullian, who is here today... Mr. Garraud, how dare you? How dare you criticise this text, you who were not even able to be there during the vote? You are a bit of those fictitious deputies who take the misery of the world to put it right in the public square. Tell that to the victims, tell that to the families of the victims! So put yourself in the place of drivers who commit tragedies. These drivers will never recover. What about the families? Go and see the families of the victims, you will also see what they tell you. The mandatory visit every 15 years is a gesture of common sense. Fourteen countries have already implemented it. In our ranks tomorrow we will send a historic message: Save lives! In 20 years we will look at this measure and in this Parliament we will be as we were 30 years ago. This compulsory belt, which was problematic at the time, and no longer is, and the blood alcohol level, which has been reduced, is no longer a problem. But 20 years from now, we will look with pride at this measure of a medical check-up that will be adopted as a second seat belt, because this Parliament has a goal: save lives.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, one death on the road is always one death too many. An injured person on the roads is always a tragedy that could have been avoided. As you will have understood, I do not believe in any fatality in terms of road accidents, and neither does Europe. Remember, in this house called the European Parliament, we collectively adopted a roadmap that sets a goal that has the strength to be simple and clear: zero deaths on our roads in 2050, zero serious injuries on the roads in 2050. Today, the numbers are terrible and you know them: 20 000 deaths per year on EU roads and more than 160 000 injured. But the number of injured does not stop there. In a road accident, there are always at least two victims, the accident victim and the driver responsible. Now, do the math: How many lives have been broken? How many families destroyed? This directive on European driving licences is nothing more or less than a tool for road safety. It is this philosophy that has animated our debates, and it is therefore through this prism that we must take things. It is through training, prevention, simple rules and common sense that we will increase safety on all our roads. The purpose of this directive is to save lives, it is our only will. Yes, Europe needs to move forward together on the issue of permits. But we know this path. Many of you have already gone through it since you are already 14 Member States, i.e. a majority, that have adopted this famous compulsory medical check-up: Portugal, Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic, Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Hungary and Lithuania. Yes, I say it very loud and clear in this Chamber, a majority of Member States have put it in place, and that is important. We can look elsewhere, but even elsewhere, we do it in Argentina, Switzerland and so many other countries around the world. Today we are offering you this visit, which will take place throughout life, because our physical condition is changing and age is not the only factor that can affect driving. See things like this: it is a gesture of common sense, really a simple gesture, like a second seat belt. Our Parliament can send a historic message in the face of tragedies that cannot be described. I must admit that, in my career as an MEP, I have never received so many testimonies, I have never felt so much suffering, I have never realized that any of us, overnight, can have a serious accident, and in a fraction of a second to fall into the camp of the victims. I want to give here some testimonies that I have received. Pauline, here in the public, became a Paralympic athlete after being broke by a 90-year-old motorist, turning her fight into a real desire to make this legislation a big piece of legislation. Floraine, 27, who is also present here in our Chamber, and I thank you. Floraine lost her mother, Jacqueline, three months ago, toppled by a motorist certainly unfit to drive. There is also Anne-Laure, a nurse, who sees patients walking in walkers, but who continue to drive. Virginie, an insurance manager, who sees too many accidents that could have been avoided by a law. Yannick, a lorry driver, who is checked in France every five years, who does not see why this measure should not be extended to all drivers. And Camille, who herself had to remove the car keys from her grandmother ten years ago, because she was afraid for her. I stop there, ladies and gentlemen, because there are so many of them, but they dare to lift taboos, they dare to raise their heads because it requires real, political commitment. I'm telling you, I'm counting on you. We need to legislate because if we don't legislate, you will be convicted tomorrow for not assisting anyone potentially at risk. Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow the vote will take place, and I am counting on you. We have this ability to say loud and clear: "The European Parliament can save lives".

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we are moving slowly along the path of a single permit. I say softly, because here we know the frilosities of the Member States in making a real European permit. Yet it would be very useful, this European permit, because we have 60 deaths on the roads a day. I repeat: 60 deaths per day in the European Union. This is dramatic, and that is why we are calling for a point permit. That is why we need to monitor infringements wherever they take place on Europe’s roads and why these sanctions need to apply everywhere in the European Union. In short, a fair permit, but without complacency, without impunity for all offences. We are not there yet, but we are at least tackling impunity for serious cases, i.e. speeding and alcohol and narcotics consumption. We are ending it, but we are extending the forfeiture of the licence everywhere in these cases.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the texts we are debating today, no matter how technical, are very concrete examples of political battles and victories that have a real impact on the wallets of the citizens of the European Union. Indeed, as several academic studies have pointed out over the past two years, the surge in energy and food prices that has led to the inflation we are experiencing is not only the result of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, but also of excessive speculation and market manipulation by investors who have little regard for the real impact on the daily lives of citizens of the European Union. What were the concrete consequences of this inflation? Aberrant energy bills, households unable to cope with certain monthly payments and having to restrict themselves to live properly or, I would even say, just survive. Thanks to the action of our group, to the amendments I tabled and to the political will we had in the negotiations, particularly in the Council and the Member States, we have achieved key victories in these areas. Thus, in the event of a surge in the prices of raw materials and energy on financial markets, market authorities will now have the full capacity to suspend transactions on them, thus avoiding sudden exponential inflation on basic commodities. Similarly, the revenues this year and next year by the European Commission of the rules applicable to the ancillary financial activities of large non-financial groups and the position limits can be welcomed. We know the negative consequences of excessive speculation in markets that further enriches the richest, but further impoverishes the poorest. In addition, our group has been fighting for years to increase transparency on the financial markets, a prerequisite for their proper functioning, by creating a consolidated system of publications making market data available to all actors and accessible free of charge by individuals, NGOs and academics. And I conclude by saying that, yes, the text is not perfect, but we hope initially, Madam rapporteur, that this text will have concrete progress for the wallets of our fellow citizens.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a year ago we were traumatised, shocked and disgusted to learn that the European Parliament and the European Commission had been the mouthpieces of Qatar’s interference. Worse, this case has splattered us all and it has discredited the political class. Between suitcases of tickets found in various homes, flights and all-expenses-paid hotels, reality has surpassed the fiction of a Netflix series. It is time for Parliament to sweep in front of its door. Parliament must once again become the absolute standard of transparency and integrity. So, tell me, why hasn’t the EU-Qatar aviation agreements been suspended yet? Why was the visa waiver agreement with Doha not suspended? Where are we with the committee of inquiry? Where are we with this High Authority? Really, what are the guarantees that such a scandal will not take place tomorrow? I tell you loud and clear in this institution: our democracy is not for sale, and it is not the lobbies that make the law.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have arrived with great intelligence at a historic result that puts a very fossil sector (heavy goods vehicles, 25% of carbon emissions from transport) on a low-emission trajectory. Low emissions? I would have preferred a zero-emission trajectory. We will have done it with the cars. We environmentalists have also defended it for trucks, but we agree with the objective of minus 90, because if the intermediate targets remain ambitious, they must be increased. I would like to draw your attention to one thing: we can carry a roadmap as we know how to do today, but it will have to be accompanied above all by an industrial policy. Because we're late. Sales of electric trucks represent only 1% of the market in Europe. They cost €450,000 per piece, while today freight operators are known to be mostly SMEs. We can make release schedules, yes, but above all we will need a real ambitious industrial policy. And the Net-Zero Industry Act does not currently address this.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must say how angry I am. Seven years ago, when we came out of Dieselgate, we all agreed in this Chamber. We said: Never again. Never again a trash car, never again a cheat under the complicit eye of the Member States of the European Union, we have taken the measure of the health scandal, so that the European Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry concluded that it was a victory for us, the legislators, by a historic message to the car manufacturers, a message that said: We're watching you and you're going to fix your mistakes. That is what they were told. And since then, nothing. What has happened in the last seven years? Nothing, or very little. We had to go straight to the Euro 7 standard. We are still not there. What we are going to vote on today is a lighter standard, rejected in Greek calendars. We are signing up to 2050 for 100 million trash vehicles and an air quality directive that will never be respected. You will find no support from me for such a mess. You will explain yourself to the Europeans who will suffocate in particular from this air and to the 300,000 victims of air pollution each year.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, Dominique Bernard, a professor of letters, died five days ago from the stabbing of a terrorist who injured two others, an agent and a teacher. It could have been worse. Except that Dominique Bernard, at the risk of his life, fought the assailant, giving the students time to hide and protect themselves, saving time for the police to intervene. Dominique Bernard is a hero, for his students, for his colleagues, for France, for Europe. Mais je dois vous le dire: I'm angry. Angry at the absolute horror that simultaneously strikes France, Belgium and our Swedish friends – sick of the minutes of silence, of the lights on our national symbols! – revolted that, in France, three years after the terrorist attack on Samuel Paty, Education Nationale is once again in mourning! A society where teachers are killed is a sick society. I have a message for our teachers, I want to tell them one thing: you did not fail. You may doubt it, but I'll tell you again: It was not you who failed, on the contrary! You are the dyke that resists the bottom line of terrorism, religious fanaticism, separatism, and our enemies are not mistaken. To defend secularism, our history and our values, you are the last bastion of the cohesion of our society. Faced with this immense responsibility, we have a duty of unity towards you – we have all been pupils. Personally, I spent my young years in the north of France, in a high school near Arras. I can tell you: It was the school that raised me, it was the school that made me who I am. L’école, oui, efface même les inégalités sociales. School is our temple. Aucun élève, aucun professeur ne doit plus jamais se sentir en danger. I thank the teachers. On vous fait confiance, on vous confie nos enfants, on a besoin de vous, et, en contrepartie, notre devoir est de vous protéger. So, Commissioner, tell us: comment comptez-vous aider nos jeunes et la communauté éducative en Europe? How will you restore the climate of serenity, oh how necessary? We need to bandage our wounds.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will vote on a historic agreement that sets out for the first time a roadmap to decarbonise the aviation sector in Europe by 2050, and to lift the sector out of its dependence on kerosene, one of the most polluting fuels in the world. There is an urgent need to: the aviation sector accounts for 3% of global CO2 emissions, the equivalent of Germany’s emissions in one year, and air traffic is projected to increase by 50% by 2035. I say it loud and clear: It is time for the aviation sector to contribute to the fight against climate change. We start from afar: the availability of sustainable aviation fuel in Europe is close to zero. A whole sector must therefore be created – yes, the FAS sector. It is an industrial issue, an issue of European sovereignty. So yes, I really want a stronger commitment to synthetic kerosene. I regret the obsession of some States with nuclear energy, which has once again marred the negotiations on a text, in particular the Green Deal. Aviation is the sector that needs to make the transition. But beware, this text will not be the only one and, I finish if you will, we will have to reduce the number of flights tomorrow. Tomorrow we will have to make sure that domestic air links of less than 4 hours are replaced by trains, relaunch night trains and, of course, strengthen legislation on the Single European Sky.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we had to remind ourselves again, the climate emergency is here. It will demolish us all, and it will demolish us even more tomorrow if we do nothing. Transport accounts for a quarter of CO2 emissions in the EU and is the only sector that has not reduced its greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. The finding is therefore simple: In order to achieve our climate goals and carbon neutrality by 2050, rail freight must truly become a priority. Yes, freight must be transformed, greened, reinvented. And it is with this in mind that we need to move towards a 30% modal share of rail freight by 2030. But we are still too far, below the 20% mark. So today's legislative proposals are insufficient in this regard. To achieve this goal, we need clear legislation, investments, sectors, because behind it there is employment, but also enormous political will. We also need to protect existing rail freight and the Commission absolutely must not dismantle it in some Member States. We will look into these texts as soon as possible. I regret, however, that these proposals are only coming now, less than a year before the European elections. We have been hammering it for years now, the ecological transition cannot wait. She can't wait for anyone, anything. That is why we are asking you, and I say this to you as Chair of the Committee on Transport in this Chamber, to act quickly, forcefully and swiftly, because we are already behind schedule.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I will tell you as I think: The European Parliament is the place of rights. It is here, through our work, that we ensure that no one is discriminated against for what they are. I will not accept that such fundamental societal topics as helping to found a family, whether it is reproductive aid or helping others, are being hijacked or instrumentalised against LGBT families. I am addressing you, the ECR, because you have asked for this debate. The truth is that in the countries where you are in government, surrogacy is not a topic. Do you know why? Because you are not even there yet. In Poland, you come to talk to us about GPA. You have not even opened up civil union to same-sex couples. You continue to pass anti-LGBT laws and create LGBT-free zones. Year after year, NGOs tell us, Poland has become the most anti-LGBT country in Europe. So don't bring your hatred to us here in the European Parliament. Similarly, in Italy, your leader, Ms Meloni, was seen cutting off the filiation rights of children from surrogacy abroad. Remember, the Mayor of Milan, in this Chamber, came to sound the alarm to tell us that children were no longer registered, that their parents would be criminalised. Where is the best interest of the child? Where is your humanity? I tell you very clearly, the ECR: Do not pretend to be women’s advocates to us, while you are violating, where you are in government, the rights of European homoparental families to use them for what they are, i.e. families. I'm telling you: this wrong will be corrected through the Regulation on mutual recognition of parenthood. If you really want a debate on surrogacy, it will take time first. It is not by debating, especially in this Parliament, that the solution is reached. This is not true. Look on the side of our Belgian friends. A bioethics committee issued its report a week ago. A measured and balanced relationship, far from the sad passions that unleash you, and that took time. It provides favourable answers on the conditions for the reproductive solidarity, autonomy, consent and altruism of women who bear for others – all this is framed. We would all do well together to be inspired by it and to consult our European ethical bodies as well, not to use it as a tool.

Commissioner Dalli, ladies and gentlemen, five years ago I spoke in this Chamber and said it loud and clear: Fear and shame must change sides. We are five years later. It is not a giant step, it is a giant step for us women. As we know, one in three women in Europe has experienced physical or sexual violence. More than half of the women were harassed. Seven die every day under the blows of their spouse or ex-spouse. Remember, Covid has created a phantom pandemic, that of domestic violence. This data is freezing. But I want to tell European women: We, the women, have a strong presence today in this Chamber, where Parliament will allow the ratification of the Istanbul Convention by the European Union tomorrow. So, I tell you, we will be intractable with the six out of 27 countries that still act in defiance of our rights. Yes, women's rights. You have our full support, Commissioner. You are not alone. Whatever the far right says. We are here to guarantee the protection of all women by all the means that the treaty has given us. I tell you, we can be proud of our Chamber. Women must be in the spotlight, and Woman Power!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is a rule in democracy: citizens trust us, they entrust us with part of their destiny in the name of a principle, trust. Confidence that we will serve their common interest and not particular interests. As we have seen with qatargate, our institutions are the target of foreign powers. As we have seen with dieselgate, our institutions are the target of mixed private and public interests. Then, in the event of an attack, we must have appropriate answers. It does not seem appropriate to me that a Director of the Commission should be able to travel nine times all costs paid to Qatar in the midst of the negotiation of air agreements with that country. It does not seem appropriate to me that this procedure has been approved by him. It does not seem appropriate to me that these agreements are already in force when they have not been ratified by the Member States or adopted by Parliament. How can we not see an obvious conflict of interest? So I ask for two things, explanations. The Commission must answer all our questions. Those of the environmentalists who wrote a letter. Those of the European Ombudsman who took up the problem. Even before revising the rules on transparency and travel for its officials, I am really calling for the air agreements between the European Union and Qatar to be frozen until the whole conflict has been ruled out.

Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I come from a land of cycling: I was born in France, in Roubaix, that is to say, I was destined to do great things for cycling. So you all know the Paris-Roubaix, its cobblestones, as you also know the Tour de France, the Tour des Flandres, the Tour de Lombardie, and so on. Cycling is an immensely popular sport in Europe, but it is above all a mode of transport. The facts must be re-established: an e-bike, for example, is the most reliable means of transport over a distance of 1 to 10 kilometres. And it is reliability that is important to arrive on time for sure, avoiding congestion, while going at efficient speeds. Cycling also proved to be an indispensable means of transport during COVID-19, to the point that people even spoke of ‘coronapists’, while public transport was at high risk. Cycling is popular, and manufacturers are now struggling to meet the demand for bicycles. And despite everything, they remain poorly valued, abused by the political power, abused by the public authorities, and this despite a growing demand on the part of the populations. So here – it’s historic – in the European Parliament, we have the solution: We want a European cycling strategy. She'll be here and she'll be adopted in a few hours. It was made in the committee that I chair, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, it was the unanimous vote of the political groups, the unanimity of this far-sighted committee. Yes, it is time to send a very clear message: We absolutely need to double the use of cycling by 2030. And how? By deploying secure infrastructure: there are still too many risks to go to work by bicycle, to drop off your children at school or to let them go alone. Intermodality with public transport – especially with the train – needs to be increased. There is a need for secure car parks in train stations, with charging stations and more bicycle spaces on trains. Bicycles must be affordable; odometer allowances, reduced VAT are levers. The Social Climate Fund must be able to help those who cannot travel or pay for a bicycle. Finally, I say it loud and clear in this assembly: It is time to have bikes made in Europe. It is a real will, an industrial challenge. Currently, the cycling ecosystem represents 1 million jobs. As part of a smart industrial strategy, 2 million jobs will be at stake by 2030. Everything is to be done; So we'll be here at the rendezvous. We are ready to work with you to make the bike the place it deserves. So we ask you to quickly put in place this inter-institutional declaration on cycling. Because cycling is good for jobs, good for the climate, good for health, but above all good for purchasing power.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with a lot of hard work and intelligence, we have reached a historic agreement that reconciles the car and the climate. It is still something, because normally they are two enemy brothers. It is a transition agreement: it plans to end the production of thermal vehicles and replace them with zero-emission cars. We are at the very heart of the great ecological theories, we do ecological planning. No big revolution, no breakage when there are jobs, but the latest combustion engines have been switched off, with a smart timetable and in consultation with industry. We'll turn them off by 2035. The signal for industry is clear: we have to move now, because in 2035 it is over. Let me remind you: transport is a quarter of the EU’s CO2 emissions. Light vehicles alone account for around 10% of emissions on the Old Continent. So, no choice: the automotive industry must play the game and play its part in achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. But if the car industry plays the game, this time it will have to be accompanied. Let us create aid for companies to move towards zero-emission fleets. Companies are, in particular, the first buyers of new vehicles in Europe, ahead of individuals. Let us use leasing tools in companies to promote electricity and hydrogen, as has been done for petrol and diesel. Let’s create the financial incentive so that no electric vehicle is more expensive than its thermal equivalent. But, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I see it all too often: Stop gigantism! No electric SUVs at 40,000 euros! They are not environmentally friendly and they are not affordable. Then we move on to heavy goods vehicles: same climate effects, same mechanism. The European Parliament will be able to look into this today, as the Commission is preparing to present its roadmap on CO2 emitted by lorries. So, ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pride that I, as Chair of the Committee on Transport, take part in this march, in this measure, in the inclusion in history of a page that is turning. I would therefore like to continue to ask you to show political courage, also in the coming months. This is the meaning of our fight for the climate, this is what scientists ask of us, this is our responsibility to future generations, who are on the streets, who walk and who ask us to act.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what more do we need to do? We have cascading revelations thanks to the International Consortium of Journalists on Uber’s methods of thugs. We have a whistleblower, Mr Mark MacGann, former Uber lobbyist leader, who denounced Uber’s illegal actions between 2013 and 2017. In 2017, I myself here in Parliament’s Transport Committee denounced Uber’s fraudulent methods of influencing a Parliament study. You know what they did? They pretended to be independent researchers. They co-authored the study. Result: Uber is cited 130 times in the study, a study that looked at the collaborative economy in transport. Let’s be serious, it’s called rogue methods and it’s the employees who toast behind, who are underpaid and without social protection. So let's look at what our Belgian friends are doing: Last week, the Brussels Parliament ordered the setting up of a special committee to lift the veil on Uber’s networks of influence. Europe has been touched at its heart, a commission of inquiry will be... (The President withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you have said, the situation is serious. We were betrayed by some of our colleagues who preferred Qatar, who preferred Morocco over European projects. They will be put out of harm's way. Justice is doing it, let’s trust it. But we inherit this great mess, this feeling of general mistrust, even though the war is at the gates of Europe and we must show an infallible common front in the face of foreign powers that want to destabilise us. So yes, you said so: transparency rules need to be strengthened. Of course, this has to be done. We have friendship groups with third countries. Important reminder: countries are lobbies. They are powerful lobbies. Friendship groups with lobbies can no longer be maintained. This must stop immediately. We must also all re-examine our ties and past work with these countries. I really want to stress the urgency of freezing our work with Qatar, with Morocco. I did so in my Committee on Transport, as part of our aviation agreement with Qatar. The procedure is suspended, but the agreement is still in force – we are walking on our heads! So, you understand, we need to move fast. So let's set up a high authority on the transparency of public life. Let's set up a special commission to take stock of the phenomenon and stop its spread. It is at this price that we will restore citizens’ trust, not only in the European Parliament, but in all the European institutions.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, five years ago, here in this Chamber, I was shouting: Fear and shame must change sides! Five years later, nothing has changed. As we know, one in three women in Europe has suffered physical or sexual violence, more than half of women have been harassed, one in ten has been raped, seven die every day from their spouse or ex-spouse. And remember that COVID has created a phantom pandemic, that of domestic violence. This data is chilling, but we women will continue to stand! We have a strong presence in this Chamber: Today, out of 25 speakers, only two are men! We stand to recall that the European Union signed the Istanbul Convention in 2017. We stand up and say that six out of 27 countries act in defiance of women's rights. Commissioner, we are here to legislate. You must guarantee the protection of women and girls by all means, even beyond the treaties.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, 90% of goods in Europe pass by sea. Maritimes account for 13% of CO2 emissions from transport and are an unprecedented nuisance when it comes to air quality. And more and more cities, such as Marseille, Ajaccio and all over Europe, are mobilising against these super-paquebots that pollute the air. We have solutions, I ask you to vote for them. Do not make gas and LNG yet another transitional energy. We will not achieve our carbon neutrality goals with fossil fuels. It is easy: Let's get out of gas, especially from the energy mix. We need to focus on hydrogen, as the European Commission has set itself great ambitions in terms of green hydrogen and also ammonia. But let’s finally look to the future: sailing boats. Yes, the velica. As we now know, we have a lot of know-how in Europe. And for the air we breathe: the obligation for cruise ships to plug in when they are at berth – and I stress the obligation – otherwise they will be banned in ports in 2030. I have therefore tabled an amendment to extend this application to all vessels from 2035. Because these giant boats emit as much as 30,000 cars driving at 30 kilometers an hour. It is therefore high time to switch to electric power, because it is no longer possible to make people suffer from the fumes of these boats, in particular. I tell you, Europe has everything to be the global leader in the decarbonisation of the maritime sector. It is no longer just a matter of measuring time. So we will all take these measures and our responsibilities together, and tomorrow the vote will give a beautiful and great direction to this maritime sector.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that the issue of cycling is finally being discussed in this Chamber. This is the first step towards a European cycling strategy. The Committee on Transport and Tourism, which I chair, took up this subject a few weeks ago and prepared this oral question for the European Commission, which will be followed by a resolution after the summer. The aim is now to finally consider cycling not only as a sporting and leisure activity, but also as a real means of transport, with an industrial policy and dedicated funding. Because yes, cycling is a means of transport that has many benefits in terms of health, reducing traffic congestion on our roads and therefore pollution, not to mention the environmental benefits when we talk about CO2, or economic benefits when we talk about the purchasing power of European citizens. 8% of EU citizens use cycling as their main mode of daily travel. The proportion reaches 36% in the Netherlands, 23% in Denmark, 22% in Hungary, but only 1% in Cyprus or Portugal, or 4% in France. Much remains to be done. For example, the European Commission has been working for some time to include cycling in multimodal transport policies by integrating it into ongoing initiatives. Let us remember, ladies and gentlemen, our Commission started this work by putting more bicycles on trains. Today, the revision of the regulation on the trans-European transport network – the famous TEN-T – and the establishment of sustainable urban mobility plans are strategic tools to help increase the modal share of cycling in EU cities. Thus, a more strategic European approach that allows for safer and more widespread cycling makes a real contribution to the fit for 55 strategy and the REPowerEU plan. This is very important, we will not be able to have an effective modal shift to cycling if we do not massively develop dedicated lanes, with a separation vis-à-vis car traffic and buses. Cycling is a real asset for – I repeat – significantly reducing CO2 and air pollution, but also for limiting our dependence on fossil fuels, which is a highly strategic subject. The Commission has therefore started working on the pathway of this transition for the mobility ecosystem to help the sector achieve the twin transition – green, but also digital – and improve its resilience. The bicycle industry, including e-bike manufacturing and subcontractors, will need to be recognised as a key partner in the mobility ecosystem of a real and new EU industrial strategy, as well as in the infrastructure financing programmes and systems of the future. It is important to reduce our dependence on third countries and, when talking about cycling, especially Asia for a number of manufacturing parts, and to decongest supply chains. So let us say it here in the European Parliament: Let us give the objective of the ‘Made in Europe’ bicycle. Yes, cycling is a real challenge for sustainable mobility, but also a real industrial opportunity for Europe. When it is good for the climate, it is good for jobs. And in Europe, around 20 million new bicycles are sold each year, of which 10% – or 2 million – are e-bikes. Therefore, in addition to the bicycle sector, there is the battery sector, which is infinitely linked. We are leaving behind in this sector of batteries, but more and more – as we see everywhere in Europe – ‘gigafactories’ are setting up in the territories. And then the bicycle is the two-wheeler in the broad sense. We have very good innovations, very nice shared bike start-ups, micromobility in Europe, cargo bikes, delivery, leasing, et cetera. There are 1 million green jobs in Europe in the bicycle industry alone. What are we waiting for to really get this industry relocated to Europe and double sales and usage? So, in the light of what I have said, can the European Commission answer the following questions: Does it intend to publish a European cycling strategy in the near future? How does the Commission intend to complement or extend the Urban Mobility Framework and the Mission for Climate Neutral and Smart Cities to the EU? Are we finally planning to develop safe, secure and adapted infrastructure? And finally – I conclude, Mr President – do you intend to include the European bicycle industry... (The President withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are about to vote on a text that aims to decarbonise the aviation sector. The stakes are high: aviation emissions are exploding, aviation already accounts for 3% of global emissions and air traffic will continue to increase by more than 50% in 2035. We need to decarbonise this sector and replace kerosene, which is one of the most polluting fuels in the world, with sustainable fuels. But they still need to be truly sustainable. I call on you, ladies and gentlemen, to vote against adding palm oil derivatives, such as PFAD, or food crops to the list of such sustainable fuels and to return to the definition as proposed by the European Commission. The climate emergency is here. Let us really invest in the most sustainable fuels, including synthetic fuels, hydrogen or electricity, but not in substances that will have strong environmental and social impacts on deforestation, which will be terrible in the years to come – not to mention the harmful image that would damage our aviation industry in Europe. Let's make the right choice for the climate and for future generations.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, scientists give us three years, three years to avoid rising temperatures, three years to avoid rising bills, but above all air pollution. And it is up to us to decide now, in this House. Either we let the earth burn, or we live up to the climate challenges. So let's stop procrastinating. We have an opportunity to take this historic turn, end the sale of petrol and diesel cars in Europe in 2035 and finally comply with the Paris agreements. We have two possible choices. We can adopt tomorrow this road map of the ban on thermal cars as early as 2035. There will therefore be thirteen years to accompany the industry in this revolution. It is an exceptional challenge, commensurate with the climate challenge, the social challenge to develop the sectors. And this sector, as we know, is very important in Europe. Or we give up the game and it's the social breakage assured against the competitors. So don't listen to the sirens of the lobbies of some car manufacturers, the fossil fuel industries that bombard you with emails and calls. Don't give in! Tomorrow, be proud to vote for climate and jobs. It will be a just transition to a decarbonised economy. And we will always be at the side of employees so that no site is closed, no jobs are lost and we will finally draw the roadmap for a new industry, the one worthy of the 21st century.