What Dominique spoke about.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to vote on the trilogue agreement on TEN-T, which represents a major step forward for Europe. Moving people and goods ensures Europe’s territorial cohesion and unity. In this respect, transport manifests the Union in action. This agreement aims to bring our infrastructure in line with our new Green Deal decarbonisation objectives. The gains for Europe will be great. The aim is to create a modal shift shock in favour of rail, to connect major ports and airports, to provide the EU with a real strategy for the deployment of multimodal terminals, and to integrate major cities into the scheme. It is also the European, and not only national, logic and governance in the deployment of networks that will be ensured. Finally, this agreement strengthens the strategic nature of infrastructure, in its military dimension for maintenance, but also resilience to climate change, and better monitoring of foreign direct investment, especially for our ports and terminals. As rapporteur, I would like to thank my co-rapporteur, Ms Thaler, the entire Parliament negotiating team, for the collegiality of work that led to a good agreement.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament will vote tomorrow on a major text for improving road safety in Europe, namely the revision of the driving licence directive. This text contains a controversial but necessary measure on which I will extend, it is the introduction of a compulsory medical examination every fifteen years during the administrative renewal of this licence, in order to judge the physical and mental abilities of drivers. This systematisation of medical examinations, already in place in a number of Member States, is not intended to penalise drivers, but to protect all users of public spaces. And it is not an attack on the driver's license. How can we justify that our vehicles can be subject to regular, mandatory and rhythmic technical inspections when drivers are never checked? It is not a question of attacking mobility, but of ensuring safe mobility, as was the case with the seat belt, which was the subject of the same debates as the medical examination 40 years ago, and which no one would now consider questioning. To those who criticise Europe for intervening on a driving licence which concerns an entire European area of freedom of movement, I reply that there is, on the contrary, an urgent need to harmonise. In conclusion, as legislators, we have the opportunity to improve the safety of all road users. We will therefore be accountable by our vote for all lives that will be won or wasted or lost.

Mr President, Madam Representative of the Council, Mr First Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur for the ITRE Commission, I would like to recall the position which it broadly supported on the issue of emissions from cars. Indeed, we do not think that the ban on thermal vehicles for 2035 is desirable, for four reasons. First, from an environmental point of view, the measurement of tailpipe emissions is not relevant. It does not allow for an overall reduction in emissions. On the contrary, it is the life cycle emissions balance that must be taken into account. There are high uncertainties about the availability of supply of critical metals, the origin and quantity of electricity available, which are additional problems. We must also defend technological neutrality, which guarantees innovation and the diversity of future solutions, and also because the societal consequences will be harsh for the most fragile and unequal depending on our different Member States. Finally, we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs across Europe, precisely as a pole of competitiveness and excellence for European industry. Maintaining the minimum threshold of 90% ensures a better balance between our environmental, social and economic imperatives. Sending a strong political signal is only good if the signal itself is good. Dear colleagues, Mr First Vice-President, you love diversity, you love biodiversity, you defend biotechnological and technical diversity and you give Europe the leeway for its zero-emission transition, that is all we are asking for.

Mr President, Commissioner, today we are talking about the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the air transport of people and the entire sector. We know the severity of the impact. We do not appreciate the future, given the uncertainty about the pandemic, the uncertainty about business models and their transformation, and the uncertainty about the ‘recovery’ of overall activity. Fourth uncertainty: that of the constraints that will weigh for environmental reasons in particular. The Union and the Member States have been present and have responded to this first crisis, and are effectively assessing and will assess needs as they arise. We will continue to pay close attention, for example, to the slot allocation rules that the Commission is likely to re-propose and review. Our vigilance remains, of course, on international competition and the triple stakes. The effort that has been made by all public authorities – the EU on the one hand and the Member States on the other – calls for compensation from airlines, particularly as regards respect for social rights for their employees and respect for passengers’ rights. There has not been a general effort on the part of the authorities, of all of us, to ensure that, at the time of the crisis, this is an enforcement phenomenon that allows companies, at a certain point in time, to carry out regulations and arbitrations that are irrelevant. We believe that the effort of all, including companies, must go towards recovery, restoration and preservation of the rights of all.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear Adina, ladies and gentlemen, this House is going to vote in plenary on a number of texts, but two of them – the Connecting Europe Facility and the TEN-T – are of prime importance for infrastructure, all the more so in the context of our necessary recovery. I would like to thank the co-rapporteurs, Mrs Virkkunen and Mr Marinescu, for the excellent work and collaboration, as well as all the shadow rapporteurs and collaborators who contributed to the text of these two reports, of which I am also rapporteur. This is self-evident and must be repeated over and over again: Whether in the field of transport, energy or digital, well-functioning infrastructure is essential for the proper functioning of the internal market, for strengthening the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the Union, for the emergence of our strategic autonomy and for the achievement of the Green Deal. This is all the more so as our international competitors invest significantly in their infrastructure: China has been forced to march for 30 years and the United States recently, deciding to spend $1 trillion on its infrastructure. In order to meet its environmental ambitions and maintain its position in the global competition, Europe faces two major challenges. One is financial and budgetary, so to speak, in a constrained context where many Member States have chosen operating budgets, often to the detriment of public investment. This trend has increased with the financial crises of 2008 and 2012 and will be further aggravated by the current health crisis. The second difficulty is regulatory rather than budgetary. All requirements – legitimate: environmental, technical, civic and democratic requirements – make applications and authorisations for large projects more complex, making them more uncertain and vulnerable. Admittedly, we are enacting – with enthusiasm to which I associate myself – ambitious standards, necessary transitions, strict restrictions, but they will require a considerable effort to adapt, not only our behaviour, but also the means required for the transformation of our world. In this, each of these reports is a response to these financial and administrative handicaps in order to make our ambitions a reality. With regard to the Connecting Europe Facility, of which my two co-rapporteurs have spoken extensively, of course, like many, I regret that only EUR 33 billion is still insufficient for our needs. But beyond the endowment, it was also the governance of this fund that had to be preserved, as the previous CEF made it possible to support major infrastructure projects and was decisive at European level. For a number of them, these projects would probably not have been possible without our intervention. The allocation criteria and centralised governance make it possible to manage these funds in line with our political and climate ambitions. The ability to build transport, digital or energy infrastructure is a prerequisite for the success of our Green Deal. Beyond the financial constraints, investments are also penalized by the complexity and increasing multiplicity of studies and consultations necessary for the implementation of projects. I do not deny their necessity, but their inflation has turned the conduct of projects into an endless obstacle course for operators who are often discouraged. It now takes more than 10 years to complete a major transport infrastructure project in Europe, not to mention the associated cost increase. At a time of economic recovery and the need to accelerate the green transition, these delays and challenges are simply unacceptable. Against this, the ‘SMART TEN-T’ report – which is ultimately linked to the investment report, i.e. the CEF report – although apparently very technical, contributes significantly to making project leaders more legible in their approaches and to speeding up procedures. To this end, a one-stop shop will be set up in each Member State to centralise all the necessary authorisations and procedures and to act as a contact point with all the other authorities involved in the administrative procedures. A maximum duration of four years, where often ten years are needed, is introduced for these procedures, with limited extensions. Finally, for cross-border projects, a common authority may be set up or, failing that, a common timetable between two Member State entities and a single applicable law may be established. In short, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of these two texts is to be more effective, greener and faster, to put into practice a true virtuous transition that provides financial and technical assistance in the face of the difficulties encountered by operators and project leaders on the ground. We cannot simply be a factor in controlling, limiting undesirable and harmful activities, but we must also be an accompanist and facilitator of operational and virtuous responses, both economically and environmentally. We need to redouble our efforts. Time is running out. Europe can no longer afford to stand still when its competitors are forced to march forward. Too many major projects are lagging too far behind in Europe. The economic recovery, the environmental transition, the vitality of our territories force us to increase, to accelerate our investments. Ensuring the European competitiveness of tomorrow and starting the environmental transition today are not two irreconcilable objectives. On the contrary, they are the key to our future. Camus, who was a Nobel Prize winner in literature, said: True generosity towards the future is about giving everything to the present. So let's invest! In rail, maritime, renewable energy, digital, but let's invest! The present and the future demand it.