Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, under the slogan 'a people-centred budget', it is important to focus in this budget debate on one of the sectors that contribute most to the growth and development of the European economy. The tourism and travel industry, even after several crises, including the pandemic, remains the driving force for economic growth and social development in several Member States and is a reality in my country, Portugal – a tourism that already corresponds to the twin digital and green transitions in an equitable manner. Europe needs a medium- to long-term strategy that supports businesses, destinations, cities and people who engage in this sector on a daily basis. Tourism is also a vehicle for promoting peace, understanding and respect among peoples. It has proven to be at various times in the Union and, we believe, it will also play a key role, for example in Ukraine’s recovery. I shall therefore end by asking: Commissioner, today we are discussing the budget, and soon the next multiannual framework, for when a European tourism policy and funding... (The President took the floor from the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, the importance of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the current geopolitical context, particularly in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, underlines its undeniable strategic value in the sphere of maritime situational awareness. The Agency has provided invaluable support by working with the UN on the facilitation of sea lanes for grain transport and the effective implementation of sanctions against Russia. This geostrategic dimension alone should dispel any hesitation on the part of the Council as to the need for swift approval of the procedures. The proposal that we will be voting on tomorrow aims at integrating and reflecting on the current tasks and objectives of the Agency, ensuring that it is fully authorised and in line with the Union’s priorities as regards maritime safety, sustainability, decarbonisation, cybersecurity, surveillance, crisis management and promoting the digitalisation of the sector. We therefore intend, with this Parliament proposal, to give EMSA the necessary flexibility to incorporate new functions that respond to the evolving needs of the maritime sector, while ensuring that it has the human and financial resources to fulfil its mission. However, the reallocation of financial resources to the Agency should not entail cuts to the Connecting Europe Facility or any other relevant programme. If we want to expand the Union's competences and ambitions in terms of maritime policy, the additional resources should be drawn from the budgetary margins or the instruments of the Multiannual Financial Framework. In addition to the financial aspect, it is imperative to clearly define the tasks of EMSA, to strengthen its presence in international fora and to establish a more modern and effective governance structure, and to promote closer collaboration between the Agency and the European Parliament. The rules approved by this House, such as the implementation of a carbon market for the maritime sector, the promotion of sustainable alternative fuels, require a strengthened role for EMSA. Certain responsibilities, such as marine accident investigations, the management of data on vessel movements, clearly benefit from a centralisation that is necessary, in our view, from EMSA, taking advantage of the advanced technologies available by the Agency. EMSA should therefore be a centre of excellence for international knowledge, technology and data sharing, taking into account the global nature of the maritime sector. The Agency should be continuously involved in the discussions of the International Maritime Organisation, together with the European Commission, offering technical assistance and sharing its expertise. expertise. Finally, in order to strengthen the relationship between the Agency and the European Parliament, we propose that the latter should appoint two representatives to the EMSA Management Board, participate in the selection of the Executive Director and be consulted on the multiannual programme, as is already the case with other decentralised agencies. The Commission should maintain its current role: avoid creating unnecessary red tape that could hamper decision-making. EMSA counts on the full support of this Parliament to remain at the forefront of technological innovation, ensuring the competitiveness and environmental responsibility of the maritime industry. Finally, I call on the Council, the Member States and, in particular, the Belgian Presidency not to delay in providing EMSA with the financial resources we have listed here, with human resources and with governance that will be crucial for the performance of its vital function.

Mr President, Commissioner, I congratulate the Commission on this initiative which ensures the resilience and safety of submarine cables. For many regions of the Union, such as the outermost regions and, in particular, Madeira, where I come from, submarine cables are the fourth essential accessibility for their development. Commissioner, I call on you here to ensure that the outermost regions are genuinely recognised when drawing up projects of common European interest for submarine cables. Not only for its constraints, but for the geostrategic value of its positioning and its projects. Madeira recently presented a strategic project that will not only connect the three outermost regions, i.e. Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands, but also enhance the capacity of the current network that provides them, connecting these two Portuguese regions to the African continent and Brazil through the already existing network in the Canary Islands. This bet, or the bet on this type of investments, is highly beneficial for these outermost regions, as they allow access to data on environmental metrics, scientific projects, detection of maritime activity, but I am sure that the Union will strengthen its interests in transatlantic accessibility and with the African continent. To conclude, Mr President, these projects do indeed make it possible to strengthen the resilience and security of this sector, but at the same time they enable the strategic, economic and social development of the regions involved.

Madam President, Commissioner Breton, this agreement will, in fact, allow us to obtain crucial quantitative data to better understand local housing and, consequently, to be able to legislate in a more effective, transparent way, ensuring that political decisions will be based on evidence and not on ideological perceptions, as has been the case in Portugal. The left has changed the Local Accommodation Law that Portugal pioneered, with serious damage to the sector. Tourism has been a driving force for economic growth in almost all Member States. Many have managed to overcome several economic crises, creating jobs and generating revenue. The left demonizes without concrete foundations, much less with apparent solutions. This is certainly not how housing problems are solved. Tourism currently accounts for 8% of the Union's GDP and 12% of Portuguese GDP, it has created more than 110 000 jobs in my country. With the approval of this agreement tomorrow, we have managed to put back on the agenda a sector that really deserves to be on an equal footing with other sectors, such as education, health or agriculture.

Mr President, Commissioner, in the various illegal abuses of Nicolás Maduro is the disqualification of Henrique Capriles in the past and today of Corina Machado. It is a measure that clearly violates their political rights and, by extension, threatens the right of all Venezuelans to participate in fair and free elections. This incident takes place in a broader context of arbitrary arrests, harassment and restrictions on civil society, the independent press and political opponents. Such acts seriously undermine the democratic fabric of Venezuela. The Union needs to give a political signal, use all the instruments at its disposal, impose sanctions and be a voice that, with other Latin American governments, strongly presses the Government of Venezuela to fulfil its obligations: the revocation of arbitrary disqualifications and the guarantee of a transparent electoral process, under the observation of the European Union. Since Parliament, we have never tired of giving a collective voice and supporting the restoration of human rights and democracy in Venezuela.

Mr President, Commissioner, today we are discussing part of the legislative package on road safety. Road safety is a real concern and one that should mobilise us all. Recent data, covering the period from 2011 to 2021, show a 6% increase in road fatalities in the European Union, putting an end to a decade of successive declines. Faced with each of these lives lost on the roads, it is up to us, as co-legislators, to reflect on the measures to be implemented to change this bleak reality. The percentage of mortality on Portuguese roads is the eighth highest in the Union. In 2021, regrettably, 561 road fatalities were recorded, up from 536 in 2020. It is important to underline that each number of these mirrors a lifetime, which should call on us all to thoroughly analyse the various underlying causes and how we can work better to reduce these numbers. We are convinced that the introduction of a unified European points system will not be enough to reverse this trend. In Portugal, in my country, a similar system is already in place and I do not want to say, however, that this is not reflected. So we need to do more. So I end by saying that we are together to work on the safety of our roads, without overburdening ourselves with rules, not just looking to punish offenders, but, above all, improving the road networks of each of the countries and with proper European support.

Mr President, allow me, first of all, to commend and thank Mrs Barandica for all the work and cooperation in this report, for these effective proposals to improve what is one of the regulations - one of the pillars too - of the common fisheries policy. This regulation represents an excellent opportunity for Europe, but specifically for Portugal, to strengthen the fisheries sector, also promoting aquaculture in both forms, sustainability, justice and efficiency, reinforcing the necessary support and respecting the specificities of the outermost regions. Portugal is one of the largest fish consumers in Europe and also has one of the largest exclusive economic zones. We therefore have a duty to create the necessary conditions so that our fishermen and the entire industry involved in the value chain can work with quality and rigour, serving the final consumers, also improving the information provided to the consumer. I therefore highlight one of the most important changes to this regulation: strengthening the role of fisheries and aquaculture producer organisations. These organisations play a significant role in market management, including the implementation of production and marketing plans. However, despite progress, there are still significant challenges. Inconsistent application of the rules in the Member States is a matter of concern. It is therefore imperative to ensure more effective harmonisation of practices in order to increase consumer confidence and ensure a level playing field for all those involved in the sector. We must continue to improve traceability and transparency throughout the value chain, which is crucial to protect our seas and give more confidence to our consumers. As co-legislators, I conclude, we have a responsibility to continue working to improve this regulation, adopting and securing a more sustainable future for fisheries, aquaculture, and protecting our marine resources, supporting and counting on our communities.

Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Mato on his excellent work on this report. We do need a serious and modern reform of the CFP, as this report makes clear. A reform is therefore needed that takes economic and social conditions into account in a balanced way and not just a predominantly environmentalist view. I therefore insist, as I have done for many years, on this part of the mandate - it is not just an opinion, it is a clear conviction, Commissioner - that we must allow and support, with funding, the urgent renewal of the fishing fleet, especially and above all, in the outermost regions. Regions such as the Azores and Madeira, in Portugal, are fighting the obsolescence of their fishing fleets, which not only jeopardise their livelihoods, but, as you know and well, have a negative impact on the environment. I therefore urge you once again, Commissioner, that it is not too late for us to act decisively to support the fishing industry, our fishermen, but also the future of our seas.

Mr President, we have seen with great concern the housing crisis in recent years. Not being an exclusively Portuguese problem, the truth is that the increase in the cost of living, the difficulty of access to affordable rental, the late departure from the parents' house are a particularly serious reality in my country, Portugal. The socialist government, which has been in power for years, has completely forgotten young people in its policies. A developed society builds on the value of its generations and all this has not happened in Portugal. We are witnessing a rise in property market prices – a phenomenon that has become an almost insurmountable barrier for young people who aspire to own or rent a house. Construction of new homes has fallen by 85% over two decades and prices have risen much more than household incomes. In the last decade, only 110 000 buildings have been built, compared to 500 000 in the previous decades. The Socialist Government and the Socialist Members here, too, are calling on Europe to devise a common solution. Why? Because, in Portugal, they were unable to face this problem with solutions. But the Union, as has been said, already has and already supports housing. It is therefore imperative to develop an effective plan in Portugal that responds to the issue of affordable housing and offers young people fair wages and opportunities for professional growth, using the Structural Funds as a concrete response to these challenges. The PSD proposes support such as exemption from IMT, stamp duty or others. The socio-economic future of Portugal depends on this path.

Mr President, the PSD, the PPE, is still on the side of the Venezuelans. We do not forget their suffering and repudiate the continued deterioration of democratic values, the violation of the rule of law and human rights in this country. More than 7 million people have left Venezuela since 2015. 90% of Venezuelans live in extreme poverty. At the moment, there are about 300 political prisoners and this is unacceptable. The humanitarian situation resulting from the political crisis created by Maduro, the impact of the migration crisis, make us strongly defend an imperative called democracy. The 2018 elections were neither free, nor fair, nor credible. The lack of democratic legitimacy also applies to the referendum on the annexation of parts of Guyana and also to an illegal impediment to the candidacy of Maria Corina Machado. Venezuelans urgently need a government that truly represents the will of the population. Since the European Parliament, we therefore call on the international community to support free and fair elections in Venezuela and the full implementation of the commitments adopted in Barbados.

Mr President, technological neutrality, if achieved in heavy-duty vehicles, will benefit all Member States, allowing each of them to meet their respective targets according to their energy mix. In all modes of transport, and not just heavy-duty road, there are no technical, unique and perfect solutions for this decarbonisation. So what we stand for in the European Parliament, what we should stand for here, is all the cleaner energy alternatives that really make it possible to achieve these objectives, not to create uncertainties that are detrimental to investments, but also to the innovation of transport companies. In Portugal, road freight transport accounts for around 65% of transport activity. The dependence on this mode of transport means that any change to the rules will have a greater impact on us than on another Member State. So what we are going to defend and legitimise here, on behalf of the PPE as well, is support for energy sources that allow CO2 emissions to be reduced, without electing any to the detriment of others.

Mr President, I would just like to ask you to show some solidarity with a preliminary point that I want to focus on before this Parliament - my public vote, also one of solidarity and appreciation, for the courage of all Madeirans, in particular the citizens of Calheta, Porto Moniz and Câmara de Lobos, for the moments they have experienced of anguish and loss against the fires that have ravaged the island of Madeira in recent days. A public thanks to all firefighters, civil protection agents, medical and nursing teams and also the national support that was provided in strengthening the regional contingent. And if it is necessary to activate the Union Solidarity Fund, we will be here to approve it quickly and unequivocally. Two points on this budget: an omission and a necessity. Union resources should be focused and invested fairly in the economy. I regret the omission of a budget for the tourism industry. And, on the point of necessity, to focus on the need to strengthen the European Maritime Safety Agency. The Commission does want to see more tasks assigned to EMSA, but this requires more funding.

Mr President, I would firstly like to thank colleagues for their excellent work on this dossier on urban waste water. However, it is crucial to recognise that the reality of the outermost regions – and I also call on the Commissioner to recognise Article 349 of the Treaty – in particular the Autonomous Region of Madeira, requires differentiated action and approach. I therefore call on this Parliament and all the political groups to support the amendment, derogation 266, which was proposed by our political group, the EPP, and which aims precisely at this differentiated treatment for an outermost region. Madeira is currently investing in primary wastewater treatment, an investment of around EUR 18 million, much of which comes from European funds. Therefore, we will not compromise these investments and we will also support the benefits they will bring, environmental benefits, to our European regions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this debate concludes a lengthy and complex process. Having arrived here, we can conclude that we have managed, in this legislative work, to establish a set of clear and realistic targets, with a view to supporting the production and use of sustainable aviation fuels, leaving no one behind. We will therefore vote on a set of rules setting targets that, gradually implemented, combined with flexibility measures and safeguard clauses, are intended to give guarantees of less impact to all those involved in this legislation, be they airlines or consumers. We approve of a broader concept of SAF, adapted to the availability of raw materials in the Union, to the market, but also to the reality of each Member State and with incentives for research, production and use of these fuels. We are regulating the market, Commissioner, but I have doubts, without fiscal and financial incentives from the European Commission, I think it will be extremely difficult to meet these targets. European citizens in general, but in particular Portuguese citizens, should not be obliged to pay this bill. As of tomorrow, Member States also have this obligation to make a strong commitment to the development and production of SAF. An investment that will be critical to their economies and the legacy left to the next generations. That this legacy is truly more sustainable. If the Union is a pioneer in this, we will set an example in the world and also in aviation. Regulating without the right incentives will not make us more sustainable, but will create jobs, especially for those who live in peripheral countries and also in outermost regions. The work is therefore completed in the European Parliament. We look forward to the positive vote tomorrow. Industry now has new rules and hopefully it will be a clear long-term investment perspective.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is first of all regrettable that the Commissioner responsible is not here with us today to hear what we have to say about the agreement under discussion here. We could discuss today the public policies and rules drawn up in this agreement, but we will not. We could discuss the urgency of supporting the fisheries sector to manage it sustainably and efficiently, but we will not do so. Today, what we stand for is respect for the work of each of us, representatives of the Portuguese citizens, of the European citizens, as co-legislators of Parliament. Commissioner, the European Parliament has asked for and put forward alternatives to this agreement. It postponed votes in the Committee on Fisheries to give the Commission time to amend the shortcomings to which it subjected this agreement. The Commission has made a clean slate of our requests. I could talk about the content of the agreement, but I must underline the fact that the legal services of the three European institutions point out flaws to the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties. The non-translation of texts into all languages prevents all citizens from truly understanding and participating in their own language. By rejecting multilingualism, they are devaluing the importance of all those we represent and with that we cannot agree. Rejecting this agreement is a vote for equal access and respect for the community and citizens. It is a vote to preserve multilingualism and a vote expressing the respect we demand for the role of the European Parliament as co-legislator.

Madam President, Commissioner, we have no doubt about the importance of marine protected areas in conserving and restoring natural resources. We all understand, in certain cases, the prohibition of more intensive exploitation practices that are potentially harmful to the environment. What we do not understand, nor do we accept, is a non-transparent decision-making process, without scientific consistency, without studies of economic and social impact and with a back to those who live from the sea and derive their income from it. We have stated several times that a marine protected area, although very useful, is not an end in itself, it is an instrument of environmental conservation that, when well supported in science and coordinated with all stakeholders, can be decisive, including for those who make fishing their activity. It is never too much to remember that your decisions, and our decisions as well, affect entire communities of people and families living in the fisheries sector. An instrument of environmental conservation, when misapplied, serves neither the environment nor the economy; on the contrary, it destroys businesses, destroys communities, destroys families. Ocean conservation is not effective if it does not involve all stakeholders and if it does not have as its fundamental pillars science, transparency and the principle of proportionality, which, it seems, in this particular case, have once again been forgotten. Commissioner, I know you are representing Commissioner Sinkevičius here. I would therefore ask you to consider at least suspending the decision until, in fact, they have been able to obtain the appropriate opinions, taking into account not only the demonstrations of the various Member States, and I will finish by also conveying the message and wishes of the Members who have spoken here in this plenary.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this week we are voting on two proposals for regulations, both maritime and infrastructure, which are central to achieving the 2050 climate targets. Maritime transport may be one of the sectors with the greatest demands in this transition process. Aware of this need, the Commission has shown ambition in the texts it presents to us, supported by impact studies and their proper quantification. Despite this, Parliament, in almost all Fit for 55 packages, has repeatedly raised the level of ambition to values that we consider unrealistic. I give as an example the increase in the installed power of the charging stations, the distance between them, the increase in the dates for their implementation or also the air conditioning system in aircraft cabins. In all of them there has been a lack of what I believe to be the cornerstone of our work as co-legislators, the principle of proportionality. However, since very important compromises have been reached in both texts, such as derogations and exemptions for peripheral countries such as Portugal and also for the outermost regions, something that was not included in the Commission's initial text, today we welcome and are in a better position to support these proposals.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Carvalhais, the transposition of Union law into national law of the conservation and enforcement measures adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation is crucial to ensuring compliance with sustainable fishing practices in these waters. It is a pity that it takes so long to implement this transposition. The Union must speed up these processes by ensuring the implementation of practices for the conservation and recovery of fish, in particular by minimising infringements, in particular of illegal and unreported fishing, which harm both the environment and Union fishermen who comply with and see their activity threatened by those who infringe. At the same time, while ensuring these transpositions, it is crucial to provide the European Fisheries Control Agency with the human and material resources to effectively combat all illegal practices. In this, as in all organisations, the Union must have a strong and active voice in environmental conservation.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to begin by commending the spirit of openness and compromise of the rapporteur, Søren Gade, in this negotiation process, but also to express a thank you which extends to all colleagues in the other political groups. Often with diverging positions, indeed many of them antagonistic, I believe that we have started with a constructive, reasoned debate, which ends up only valuing the document that we are going to put to the vote today. We all recognise that the aviation sector is facing a difficult transition process but, being difficult, it is necessary for its decarbonisation. We recognise this on the part of the legislator, and we also recognise the economic operators in this industry. Synthetic fuel production technologies are still at an early stage of development. We therefore advocate a wider scope of the definition of sustainable aviation fuels, in a logic of greater openness to various technological solutions, especially when referring to biofuels. This extended spectrum would allow for more flexibility and make the European Commission’s 2025 targets more realistic. Because it's not enough for us to be ambitious, we need to be pragmatic. We need to base our decisions on facts. We should not go for utopias or ideological dogmas that only create problems for industry, but that, above all, create problems for people, citizens who want and need to travel, and do not contribute much to the ultimate goal: zero emissions in 2025. Ladies and gentlemen, the text we are going to vote on is balanced overall, ready to help the industry that is crucial for Europe. However, let me say that I believe that the targets set for synthetic fuels are at an unrealistic level, especially in the short term, which is likely to create problems, especially for southern and eastern Member States. Without competitively priced, scaled production, tying to such targets will create imbalances in the internal market that are difficult to overcome in the transition period. In short, we do not want to create more difficulties for our citizens without achieving even the environmental objectives, and it is this, as legislators, that we must avoid.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are currently experiencing a turbulent period in our history. Europe, still recovering from a pandemic crisis, is facing an unthinkable and unjustifiable war in the 21st century. Of course, the loss of human lives is the main burden of the conflict, but in addition to this humanitarian catastrophe, there are the economic effects that are beginning to be felt in various sectors. Companies and households feel in their financial management the difficulties of a price hike. The livelihoods of millions of people in Europe depend heavily on transport, tourism and travel. Travel agencies, airlines, cruises have shown a huge concern. We have approved an unprecedented set of sanctions on Russia. It was imperative to do so – in a clear demonstration of support for Ukraine and in defence of the freedom and democracy that have cost so much to conquer. As co-legislators, we must not stop here. The risk of transport poverty is also real. There are families who will not bear the high prices of goods and services. Commissioner, what mechanisms are we planning to put in place? What instruments will we put in place? How do you plan to mitigate the impact of the industry on aviation? Are you aware that the transport sector, in addition to dealing with the effects of the pandemic and the war, now has a Herculean challenge to achieve ambitious and demanding environmental targets? Are you aware that there are outermost regions that depend almost exclusively on air and sea transport for the mobility of people, goods and services? I shall end this debate with an appeal. Let us work on the implementation of extraordinary support measures, short-term support and support for task force tourism in the European Parliament: the European agency, a funding line for tourism, the European crisis management mechanism. I will end, Mr President, with more sanctions on Russia, more aid to Ukrainians and more concrete support measures for transport and tourism.

Madam President, Commissioner Sinkevičius, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your speeches and for most of your support for this project. At the end of this debate, it is clear that there needs to be a gradual opening-up of the market for the rental of vehicles for the carriage of goods, as well as the desirability, in a forthcoming review, of talking about a fully open market, which will make it possible to maximise the full potential of this sector. I will end with a caveat that I think is important to remember. This proposal guarantees the freedom of Member States not to apply any restriction on the use on their territory of a vehicle rented and registered in another Member State. If there is a market distortion in a particular country, they may do so, but with the appropriate limitations referenced in this Directive. We need to know whether the existing differentiated taxation will have any impact on the growth of this market. What are the effects of the implementation and enforcement of this Directive? It will be crucial to be aware of, assess whether and how Member States apply the rules and comply with the limitations achieved by this agreement and whether or not they will have perverse effects on the development of this market. Only through thorough analysis, accurate evaluations and impact studies will we be able to legislate better in the future. If so, we will be here to ensure that this legislation is also favourable to the single market, but that it also allows these companies to develop better in our Member States.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate we are bringing to this House today is the culmination of extensive legislative work carried out in recent years to demonstrate the importance of the road logistics sector and its relevance to the world economy, to the European economy and how it directly affects the daily lives of European citizens. While we were fully aware of the importance of this sector, the pandemic crisis has accentuated the urgency of ensuring greater flexibility for transport companies, demonstrating that the market for hired vehicles, without drivers, in freight transport needs to be adapted to the reality of the present moment, as a result of changes and socio-economic contexts. We believe that more flexibility should be given to companies so that they can better respond, for example, to peak demand. We argue that more financial freedom should be given to hauliers, or self-employed companies, to hire vehicles rather than buy them. This has to do with the fact that, on the one hand, it allows for more efficient management of companies and, on the other hand, it ensures that hired vehicles are newer, safer, less polluting and therefore more sustainable vehicles. And sustainability is also defended by us when we stimulate the reduction of the number of empty return trips, seeking to achieve the ambitious goals and climate targets that we propose to meet. The sector is today struggling with rules on the use of hired vehicles defined at least 30 years ago, rules prohibiting, for example, the use of vehicles rented and registered in another Member State. Now, we have 27 types of rules that force companies to a paraphernalia of bureaucracies, restrictions and uncertainties. We have therefore come to the conclusion that car rental is practically impossible in the internal market, which means that companies have rented for purchase. The Member States with the highest number of restrictions are precisely those where this type of markets and renting is least developed, not leveraging an economy of scale, nor the potential development offered by the internal market. The agreement reached, which we will vote on, is therefore intended to clarify the rules and gradually harmonise the legal framework for this rental market. In my view, three points deserve to be highlighted. First, to ensure greater flexibility for transport companies and self-employed operators, allowing them more options that respond to their real and current needs, encouraging entrepreneurship, allowing the possibility to allocate resources in the best possible way, materialising this commitment, on the one hand, in environmental gains and, on the other hand, in a greater promotion of road safety. Second, to allow for a gradual opening of the market. The vast majority of Member States are not allowed to restrict the use in their respective territories of a vehicle hired by an undertaking established in another Member State. And finally, the imposition of safeguards. As the level of road transport taxation varies substantially within the Union, Member States may continue to restrict, within certain limits, the use of vehicles hired and registered in another Member State, taking into account three issues: the proportion, i.e. vehicles hired and registered in a Member State, may not represent more than 25 % of the fleet that the undertaking has at its disposal. The duration of the rental periods: the minimum period on the rented and registered vehicle is two months, which may be reduced to 30 days if national rules so permit. And finally, own-account transactions. Restrictions may exist on vehicles hired and registered in another Member State. Finally, I'll finish. In order to improve compliance with all these rules, national authorities will have to include in the national electronic registers the registration numbers of vehicles hired and registered in other Member States. I believe that, with this agreement, we are presenting a proposal that values the importance of implementing common rules that, at the end of the day, facilitate the work of road logistics companies operating, for example, in both Portugal and Romania.

Mr President, many considered this debate to be out of time. Why now discuss this coordination of travel when several Member States have already declared an end to restrictions? The fact is that the free movement of citizens within the European area and the disparity of measures around travel and tourism remain the rule rather than the exception. In December, the Commission established the validity of the European Certificate at nine months for the movement, not counting the booster dose, but left the decision to the Member States on the validity and purpose of the European Certificate for national use. In practice, a citizen can travel to Italy with the vaccination certificate, with two doses, but cannot go to the restaurant, to a pharmacy, take a train without taking a PCR or rapid test. And you could list here other discrepancies in different Member States. How is this lack of coordination possible two years after the declaration of the pandemic? No European citizen understands. Then they are astonished when we hear that the European institutions are far from reality. The Commission fails to put the validity of the certificate for travel or the national use of nine months for all. Shouldn't we be instilling clarity and confidence in those who travel? The Council also fails: on the one hand, it endorses recommendations, but then Member States do not implement them. Examples: the application of measures to the passenger and not to the epidemiological situation in the country of origin is only applied in some Member States. Others make a clean slate of these recommendations they have approved. And vaccinated persons required to be tested and, in the case of third countries, quarantined. It is difficult to understand these criteria. This uncoordination and zigzagging, sometimes without scientific basis, are the worst enemy of the recovery of trust and generate uncertainties for those who travel. They harm the tourism and travel sector and harm citizens. Parliament insists once again on the urgency of this coordination. Without this, the recovery of tourist destinations will take even longer. Finally, let us not forget that the Union needs international travellers. If for a European the multiplicity of rules is already a constraint, for someone from outside Europe it becomes much more complex.

Madam President, Commissioner, the rise in fuel prices has been constant over the last year. We could list many factors, both internal and external, that led to this rapid rise, but I believe that the most important thing is to ensure that all European citizens, regardless of where they live, whether public services are offered or not, are not deprived of the use of cars, planes or trains because they cannot afford the costs associated with fuel or new charges. The solution for countries like Portugal is not the train at the expense of the plane or vice versa. The solution is to create sustainable mobility of all modes of transport, according to the characteristics of each territory. The energy transition and the commitment to sustainable mobility will penalise the most polluting vehicles to discourage their use. We therefore need to guarantee European citizens that they will have support measures, avoiding the social exclusion of those who live in sparsely populated regions, island regions and also in the outermost regions. We have long called on the Commission to approve a POSEI in transport and energy, which is central to regions of my country such as Madeira and the Azores, supporting the extra costs of transport for people and goods and also serving the inland territories of Portugal deprived of other means of transport than road. The cost of this transition will fall mainly on the citizens, on the middle class. It is therefore urgent that we work together to ensure that temporary measures, support and delegations are put in place so that transport poverty levels are not reached.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are indeed experiencing a logistical bottleneck, a global supply crisis affecting the competitiveness of the European economy, affecting citizens. The general increase in prices, the lack of stock or delays in deliveries and replacements, is a reality that needs our response. The Union, together with international partners, needs to address the causes of this bottleneck, a joint response developed with the maritime sector, freight forwarders, shipowners, ports and the multimodal part for distribution. One inaction of the Union is to disappoint European consumers and to weaken European competitiveness. The shortage of containers and large ships, congestion in ports, lack of storage, delays in distribution within countries, rising energy prices, rising taxes, concentration and alliances in the hands of a few are elements to which the Union must respond. In addition, many shipowners, in order to lower costs, prefer more profitable routes, congesting large ports and moving away from more peripheral ports, which results in shortages of products also in these markets. Countries such as Portugal, the European outermost regions, suffer this effect of diversion of routes, without any alternative supply. For this reason, many consider that the maritime sector is facing a perfect storm in the face of a global crisis and the general increase in prices in 2022. Commissioner, what has the Commission done to remedy these elements? Does the United States present a major plan for adjacent infrastructure? And what can ports and operators expect to alleviate supply chain bottlenecks? And I'll finish: what plan does it have for the Union to take on this global effort to regulate the functioning of the global logistics and transport network? Because this is what we're talking about. Cooperation for economic recovery.