Speeches

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we know that a joint effort is needed to achieve the climate objectives and therefore aviation must also contribute. Sustainable SAF fuels are a crucial step. We need a medium- to long-term strategy for Europe to produce and supply this type of fuel, because the energy independence that we are looking for so franticly also passes through these actions. This regulation is central to creating a healthy market for sustainable fuels. Therefore, the measures contained in them must be evaluated without ideological dogmas. The minimum share of SAF to be introduced as an obligation from 2025 onwards is crucial, as it is central to ensuring the same usage obligations across the European Union. Support should also be given to the system which requires all European operators not to refuel at least 90% of the fuel they need at the EU airports from which they depart, in order to avoid circumvention of the SAF rule. We need to prepare for the adoption of new zero-emission technologies in time, so we need to ask our airports to equip themselves with the necessary infrastructure to recharge hydrogen and electricity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, tomorrow we will have to make a choice, a choice that will define whether there is a correspondence between what we say we want to do and what we really do next. We've been talking for months about Green Deal and the need for its swift implementation. We have agreed that reducing pollution is the key to a better and more sustainable future for our planet and the Eurovignette is, in my opinion, a first, concrete, decisive response to these intentions. With the directive that we will vote on at second reading tomorrow, we will introduce for the first time two key concepts: "polluter pays" and "user pays". It is a Copernican revolution, which makes Europe a vanguard in the fight against pollution. To date, there have been 27 different approaches to managing road tolls, a babel that will no longer exist tomorrow. I've read a lot and listened a lot these days. Objections by some who, in my opinion, are not only inadmissible but who hide a fear never manifested openly, that of those who fear that this directive will prevent arbitrary and, in some cases, vexatious solutions in the management of tolls. But isn't that, I ask you, the very essence of the European Union? That is, to ensure that all its citizens, regardless of their place of birth, are granted the same rights and apply the same rules. Is it possible, in your opinion, for a principled battle on a commonly felt issue, such as the fight against pollution, to be derailed in this way? Let us go into the substance of the directive then, to better understand what we are talking about. The first draft of the Directive was intended to eliminate distortions of competition between road hauliers. It did not take into account polluting factors, which came later when Parliament introduced environmental issues. We then went to the strong negotiation of this mandate and defended it with our teeth. In the end, we reached an inter-institutional agreement which, in my view, is historic. I say it rightly: for the first time we are talking about the removal of the vignette, the introduction of remote charging, the internalisation of external costs, the principle of proportionality, and charging based on CO2 emissions. This last point is particularly important to me, because it represents a strong incentive to modernise fleets by choosing low- or even zero-emission vehicles. This is only with regard to the environmental issue, because we have also achieved another historical result: link the proceeds of the congestion charge to the environmental upgrading of the motorway networks most prone to congestion. It is a principle of equity. For the first time, not only will States be forced to invest the revenues from the exploitation of networks in the fight against pollution, but they will have to do so precisely in those sections that are most prone to such phenomena. By the way, we have established that the directive does not only affect pollution from trucks over 12 tonnes, but also from light commercial vehicles, buses and all other heavy goods vehicles under 12 tonnes. I repeat, in short: The polluter pays and the user pays. There is another issue that is close to my heart and that has been the subject of controversy, in my opinion instrumental, in these days, namely that of the alleged double taxation. I would like to reassure everyone that it will not happen. This is because in the negotiations we introduced the sunset clause, which means that if the ETS mechanism also covers road transport, only one of the two will apply, not both. There is one last reassurance that I would like to bring to your attention. It has been argued with a pinch of malice that the Directive will lead to fragmentation of the internal market. In reality, what we do is to specify that the costs of tolls must be recovered in a fair and transparent way, taking into account, I repeat again, that those who pollute the most and those who use the most must pay the most, not all citizens indiscriminately. I conclude with one final appeal. A number of amendments have been tabled in plenary with the aim of undermining the interinstitutional agreement. I appeal to your responsibility. This agreement is the result of a long and tiring process, which has led to the formulation of a text that will significantly improve the management of tolls at European level. They must all be rejected and my appeal is to do so with conviction, because it is not true that if they are approved, a new phase of negotiations will open up on the file. This, as you well know, will not happen. We simply risk leaving the situation unchanged for the next ten years and it is a danger that we cannot run. This Directive is a significant first step in the implementation of the Green Deal in the world of transport. I therefore trust in your support and support in tomorrow's vote. Thank you all and good work.