Speeches

Mr President, I would also like to thank the Commission for the efforts to implement the 2022 budget. As we reflect on the findings of the European Court of Auditors, we must acknowledge the evident need for a sufficiently high Connecting Europe Facility transport budget line in order to ensure the implementation of TEN-T network. Funding the network is essential for finalising its core corridors by 2030, and the extension of the connection towards the eastern neighbourhood and, in this regard, full Schengen accession of Bulgaria and Romania. And let’s not forget the need for further relevant investment dedicated to the tourism sector, which is extremely important for our continent. Related to the diversification of the tourism offers for citizens are the extension of the tourism season and improved conditions for the workers in this sector.

The need for additional measures to reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality is undeniable. The air in my hometown is one of the most polluted in the European Union, resulting in hundreds of deaths every year. Euro 7 legislation proposes strict emission standards for vehicles aimed at combating air pollution and mitigating the effects of climate change. While the ambition for this is commendable, we must ensure that these provisions do not place a disproportionate burden on those who are already struggling to make ends meet. The lack of adequate support measures along the path of the green transition can further exacerbate socio-economic inequalities. Nor can we ignore the potential impact of the Euro 7 provisions on small businesses, especially in rural areas where access to public transport is severely restricted. And as we move forward with the new Euro 7 standards, let us send a signal through the report that ambitious but necessary emission reduction targets must be achieved in an adequate way, building a more sustainable and fairer future for all citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, 87 % of the respondents to the Eurobarometer Survey on Digital Rights and Principles say that Europeans should be protected against risky or unethical application of digital technologies including artificial intelligence. We are answering the demand of the people by introducing this legislation – the first comprehensive set of rules about AI systems. We have already said many things about the aspects of this agreement. The co-rapporteurs and the shadows, we all have briefed this room, our groups, our committees many times. This was one of the most publicly documented pieces of EU legislation – the amount of articles and posts on social media was extraordinary, and everyone seems to have a strong opinion of the outcome – and also one of the most lobbied legislation as well. The corporate interests were huge, and I’m proud to say that faced with this enormous pressure, the European Parliament held its ground and fought for its citizens. The EU legislative procedures are too opaque, too confusing, but we are the ones who speak directly, openly to citizens, industry, NGOs. Our meetings are public and well documented. Our positions are clear regardless of which group I’m talking about. It’s the Council who is in debt with its citizens. If there are any shortcomings of this legislation, and there probably are, it’s not because the European Parliament didn’t fight. We secured the ban of certain malicious AI systems. We introduced stricter safeguards on the use of RBI systems. We included foundation models in the scope of the regulation. We fought for more power to individuals when interacting with AI systems. So, thank you to all of you, colleagues, all the usual suspects here, and thank you to your teams. It’s been an incredible journey. And I would like to give the remainder of my time to Svenja.

Mr President, I am also really pleased to see that so many people from different political families support this proposal. And I think this is not only because we are all road users, or because there is no one in this room whose family member, relative or acquaintance or friend has not been the victim of a road accident. But I think that, regardless of the political family, the two basic principles that we are trying to improve – justice and safety – are guiding for all of us. Now, I am convinced that, with this commitment, we will be able to improve road safety legislation, which is in the interest of citizens and of every country. Because there were two criticisms from Mr. Haider and Mr. Wallace, first there were only four types of violations. It is not about all kinds of offenses, namely those that cause the most serious accidents on the roads. And secondly, in terms of synchronization. The aim here is not to unify our penal systems. It should be clear that when we commit violations abroad, the penalties are based on the legal framework of the country that issued the license. Synchronization can come in cases where we do not have a fixed punishment, but a floating one, and when it is floating, then this punishment should be synchronized with the punishment in the country of committing the violation. So the good thing is that everyone stresses that the success of this directive depends on cooperation between member states and on the timely flow of information between them. Finally, I believe that this directive will not only help to reduce accidents, but by making it public, it will leave an imprint on the minds of all of us and encourage us to be more attentive, responsible and uncompromising in following the rules, no matter where we drive.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, every right that we receive and exercise as citizens of Europe also carries with it responsibility. The right to drive implies the responsibility to obey the law and, when you break it, to bear the consequences, regardless of where you are. When this does not happen, tragic accidents are inevitable. The road war continues to scare us with gloomy statistics, lost lives, broken families and dreams, the result of accidents that could often have been prevented. And yes, road safety has been at the heart of European transport policy for the last 20 years. And yes, fatal accidents have decreased from 51,000 to just under 20,000, but we must not forget that these are not just numbers, but stories of real people, our fellow citizens, relatives, friends who have never come home. The privilege of free movement throughout the European Union and driving abroad should not be a prerequisite for creating immunity when committing serious offences abroad. By obtaining a driving licence, we automatically become responsible for the safety of all road users wherever we are in the Union. The Directive on the European Union-wide effect of certain driving disqualifications, as well as the entire road safety package, allows us to change the picture, an opportunity we should not miss. The ultimate aim of this directive is to bring justice by punishing reckless driving abroad, which very often unfortunately goes unpunished. By creating a coherent system of cooperation and exchange of information between the country of violations and the country of issuance of a licence, the aim is to end impunity and ultimately increase road safety. The scope includes those violations that most often lead to fatal accidents. Exceeding speeds of more than 50 kilometers per hour, driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs and any other violations that lead to serious injuries or death. And yes, I dare say that this directive will not solve the issue on its own, but it is certainly a step towards improving road safety. I think the Commission's approach has been good, but as a Parliament, we have tried to improve a little and build on what has been proposed to us in several ways. First, the duration of the rules of procedure. It is very important to have a fixed duration and the information, the exchange of information from the country of violation in the country of issuance of the license, to the knowledge of the offender, all this gives predictability and density of the directive. Second, of course, synchronization. We should strive to synchronise where there is a possibility of violations in the country of violation and in the country of issuance of the license to be, where I repeat and emphasize, where possible, as close as possible. The possibility of urbanized areas and I think that 50 kilometers above the allowed speed is too much in urbanized areas. We pay attention to this plus the respective flexibility for each country, because they put in this concept a different meaning. And of course, the promotion and use of a system that improves exchanges between countries. And we have paid special attention, so, let's not forget, lastly and with this I end, the person is never alone on the road. Let us not wait for tragedy to remind us why road safety is important and vote with reason.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, personal health space data generally is highly sensitive information that deserves highest level of protection. The EHDS is intended to facilitate the sharing of health data across the EU, which could be beneficial to patients, for instance, accessing health services cross-border. This must be done, however, in a way that protects the privacy and security of individuals whose data is being shared. The EHDS will give enormous possibilities to the healthcare sector, but this has to go hand in hand with the necessary safeguards. EU citizens should remain in full control of their health data and should have the right to say when and how someone can access their data, no matter how noble the goal is. Obtaining health data for secondary use can only happen for a number of specific purposes, which have to be in line with Article 9 of GDPR. Ensuring personal data protection is not just a legal or technical issue, it’s also a social and ethical issue. Transparency and informed consent are key elements in fostering trust and empowering individuals to make informed decisions about the use of their health data. Better data protection will increase trust in the EHDS, and make it more likely that individuals will be willing to participate and share their health data. This is essential for the success of the initiative. If we don’t give them the possibility to express their consent, we will be creating incentives for people to lie or hide information from their doctors.

Commissioner, Prime Minister, welcome to the European Parliament. You come on a day when, albeit indicatively, proposals for a future treaty change for the European Union will be voted on, including enlargement-related decision-making, and so I take the opportunity to ask: What is the position of the Bulgarian government on the issue of qualified majority and unanimity when it comes to enlargement? And since you have already mentioned that you support the Commission's proposal to open negotiations with Moldova and Ukraine, how will this affect the enlargement process in the Western Balkans and how do you see this process so that the countries of the Western Balkans do not lose their incentives in their integration path?

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank all those fellow shadow rapporteurs, especially in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, who have made this report a significant step forward in our efforts to decarbonise transport and set clear and very firm targets. Standards for heavy goods vehicles play a key role not only as a legal framework, but also as a catalyst for the clean energy transition of the sector. This is vital not only to protect the environment, but also to ensure the long-term viability of the transport sector. Secondly, we must emphasise the role of transport as the backbone of the European economy. It is the main channel of trade and exchange and supports the vital arteries of the European economy. Third, our decisions cannot be an experiment. They must be based on clear and proven approaches. And we need to stress the need for urgent and flexible measures. Measures regarding the decarbonisation of heavy-duty transport need to be adaptable enough to meet our needs and challenges. This isn't a sprint. After all, it's a marathon.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, the ReFuelEU Aviation Initiative is not merely a regulation; it is a bold declaration of our commitment to sustainability. With this initiative, we are paving the way for aviation fuels that can reduce carbon footprint up to 80%. At the same time, the Commission needs to ensure long-term funding for the aviation project to accelerate the green transition in the aviation sector, because our goal is crystal clear: to lead aviation into a future that is cleaner, greener and in harmony with our environment. Currently, sustainable aviation fuels account for less than 0.1% of total consumption, but this legislation is our needed step towards that change. By adopting this agreement, we are propelling aviation into that future, one that aligns with our shared commitment to a sustainable European Union.

Mr President, 1200 people die every year in Europe as a result of air pollution, according to data from the European Union Environment Agency. The total number of deaths exceeds 400,000 people. What else do we need to realize that the air we breathe makes us sick and takes lives? With the adoption of this report, the European Parliament will send a clear signal to Member States and specifically to local authorities that the introduction of sustainable urban mobility plans and investments in zero-emission technologies are vital. Today we have the chance to lay the foundations for the cities of the future - clean, green, sustainable, providing healthier and better quality of life. The right to clean air must be guaranteed for everyone, and it is up to us to ensure it for the citizens of the European Union and for the next generations, who must not be victims.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, glad to see so many familiar faces again. Well, generative AI systems amaze us with their ability to create art, music, even entire stories. They also pose significant risks and challenges that demand our attention. And one of the foremost challenges lies in the domain of ethics. Generative AI perpetuates biases, present in the training data, leading to the creation of content that reinforces discrimination and unfairness. Another challenge is the issue of transparency. Generative AI often blurs the lines between human and machine-generated content. This can deceive and mislead individuals who may not be aware that they are engaging with AI-generated material. Privacy and security are also pressing concerns. Generative AI systems require large amounts of data, which raises questions about the handling and protection of personal information. Additionally, generative AI raises intellectual property and copyright challenges. With the ability to mimic existing work, questions of ownership and attribution arise. Lastly, the rapid advancement of generative AI necessitates ongoing research and monitoring. Well, everything that I’ve read so far was generated, fortunately or not, by ChatGPT. So I’m glad that among the major improvements we introduced in the AI Act were the rules of foundation models and generative AI. Providers of these technologies must identify foreseeable risks to fundamental rights, health, safety and the environment, democracy and rule of law, and develop appropriate mitigation measures. In addition, they must adopt data-governance measures, ensure the performance of cybersecurity, have a quality management system to register public database. They must also make sure to prevent the generation of contacts in breach of union law. So just a final sentence: we live in an unprecedented times with technologies that we’ve seen only in the movies, and we have to tackle them to lead the way in setting our new global rules.

on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, I think I have been favoured because the regulation on which I had the honour of speaking had almost no remarks. This is an attestation of the excellent work done and the symbiosis between the various shadow rapporteurs and the main rapporteur. However, two things impressed me. One of the few criticisms to leave things on the market was mentioned, but how long will we leave it on the market? How long are we going to keep it profitable when we talk about fossil fuels? It is those who generate profits, however, that cannot feel the approaching catastrophe. Why? Because they can afford to live on high ground, where the air is clean, they can afford to eat quality food. However, this climate catastrophe hits the poor disproportionately and unfairly, because they can neither live where they want, nor eat whatever food they want, nor be treated, when it comes to European health, for the health of citizens to be treated as they want. That is why I think that when we talk about binding requirements, this is extremely important, because only they guarantee the infrastructure. And when we have infrastructure, we have clean transport, the transport of the future, because if we do not have it, we may fall back into isolation, there may still be a two-speed Europe, and despite the geographical location of one country or another, the fact that there is no adjacent infrastructure to turn it into an economic desert. One more thing about infrastructure. And here I can reassure market fundamentalists. In fact, the requirement to build infrastructure will bring back the market model, and the market model will then lead to the fact that electric cars will not only be a toy and luxury for the rich, but will be able to be universally available.

Madam President, mobility and transport are vital for European citizens and key to the European economy. Alongside the benefits, however, transport also causes enormous environmental damage and is responsible for over a third of Europe's greenhouse gas emissions. I am sure that the aspiration of every single person in this room is to change the transport sector so that it is less and less dependent on fossil fuels, to contribute to the decarbonisation of the continent, to preserve its competitiveness without depriving the poor and vulnerable of the right to affordable mobility. The active deployment of renewable sources and low-carbon fuels must go hand in hand with the construction of a geographically sealed recharging and refuelling infrastructure network to facilitate the market uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles and encourage people to use them. Ultimately, this is the aim of this regulation, to allow all vehicles, whether navigable or airborne, to travel with ease on the main European routes. I have received the file after much of the work has been done and I do not want to attach any importance to it, but as S&D Transport Coordinator, I would like to thank, on my behalf and on behalf of all my colleagues, Ismail Ertug, the man who has made a major contribution to these many small and not so small victories that the European Parliament has managed to achieve in the course of the negotiations. And if you'll allow me, I'd like to summarize just a few of them. Firstly, the regulation already covers the key missing element of the European Commission's proposal, namely rail transport, which we have all long accepted for the transport of the future. The development of alternative fuels is important for the rail sector, where direct electrification is not always possible for various reasons. We already have available technologies to replace diesel trains with electric, battery-powered or hydrogen-powered ones. It is the development of these technologies that requires the construction of appropriate charging infrastructure in the territories of the member states. Secondly, we have increased targets in terms of charging infrastructure for light-duty vehicles, which should provide 30% more electricity for each registered electric car from 1 kilowatt to 1.3 kilowatts and from 0.66 to 0.8 in plug-in hybrids. The distance factor is taken into account so that in 2025 we can ensure free cross-border travel with enough charging stations on the road. The regulation also provides for the deployment of charging stations. Heavy goods vehicles also provide for more stations with increased energy capacity. Third, but not least, are consumer-focused texts. Operators of fast charging centres above 50 kilowatts will have to provide card payment options. There is also increased transparency on how charging is done. For example, for fast charging stations, the price should be based entirely on the price per kilowatt-hour, while for slow charging stations, there are different options, be it per kilowatt-hour, per minute, per session or for other components. The creation of a European Access Point will raise awareness among European citizens and help them travel efficiently, providing comprehensive information on alternative fuels infrastructure. The Regulation also provides for the deployment of upgradable hydrogen recharging stations following a reassessment. At the same time, liquefied natural gas infrastructure for land and waterborne transport shall be limited to a minimum. The texts on providing electric power to airports are maintained, mandatory requirements we have for the deployment of hydrogen stations and so on and so on. Overall, the agreement is balanced and contains significantly more progressive positions than the original Commission proposal. I believe that a progressive approach must remain at the heart of the changes we are making today to shape a cleaner and more sustainable future for Europe and its citizens.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, all the colleagues spoke about the benefits. I am not going to repeat it. I also believe that we are on the verge of adopting legislation that will find this thin balance between the protection of fundamental rights, protecting the rule of law and promoting innovations. At the same time, I have to raise some concerns because some colleagues from the EPP, they already tabled some amendments concerning biometric identity that are almost watering down all that we agreed in the IMCO/LIBE committee meeting and negotiating to a point which make all those bans meaningless. And I’ll give you this story. I remember that story. We all remember this Pentagon project, I believe, that used AI systems to detect and identify humans. And out of eight troops, nobody was detected. All those guys, they use different amusing tricks, some somersaulting for 300m, some hitting cardboard boxes and one even looked like fruit tree – don’t even ask me what that means. The AI could not detect them because it was never trained of data of people doing so, and it does not possess the creative intelligence of a human being. Colleagues from EPP will try to make the case how these systems could be used to catch criminals. But one thing is very clear to me: those who want to hide from AI systems will always find a way to do so, and always the innocent will suffer. So it’s not a question of whether the AI systems have the potential to result in racially biased and discriminatory outcomes. We actually know for sure that this is the case. We see confirmation of this in the data provided of multiple NGOs. We keep seeing it during the LIBE mission to Washington DC, and we have heard it even from the EU High Commissioner for Human Rights. And no, AI is not dangerous only when used by autocratic governments – when a technology is flawed, it’s flawed no matter who uses it for what purposes.

Madam President, Bulgaria has been and continues to be in solidarity with the difficult fate of Ukrainian citizens. But as an economic unit, the European Union must also take care of European producers, because they are key to increasing well-being and developing rural areas. We welcome the decision of the European Commission with increased solidarity for the frontline producers of the five countries. While the financial package cannot make up for the damage, it is important that at this critical time before the new harvest, our farmers can meet their needs. At the same time, the European Commission should monitor not only these four crops, but also products such as milk powder, such as honey, where there are indications of a serious increase in imports, respectively more affected European farmers. Whether the regulation adopted on 2 May will achieve its objectives is a matter of discussion, but the most important thing is for the European Commission to propose a sustainable solution for the period after 5 June, which is not to the detriment of either Ukraine or the other European producers.

Mr President, when a fire breaks out, we do not expect it to go away, but we do everything we can to put out the fire before it turns into a disaster. However, fires and floods have not passed Europe in recent years. In winter there was no snow and the ski season and the settlements for which winter tourism is a livelihood suffered as a result. In other parts of the world, the drought is dooming hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to poverty and hunger. And when we talk about a migration problem, we can't help but wonder what some of these people are fleeing from, risking their lives. We cannot deny that the highest price for the faults of the guilty is paid by the innocent. Those who contribute least to pollution, deforestation, depletion of natural resources. They don't generate tons of harmful emissions, but they have to think about their physical survival every day because they just can't put out the fire. As legislators, we are the ones who have the tools to do so. We need to show leadership as long as we have the will to do so.

Madam President, Commissioner, less than a month ago, the European Court of Justice decided that car buyers may be entitled to compensation in the event of an illegal defeat device. And this is a fair decision because the consumers need to get their rights protected and I would say that this is the most important thing. The other important thing is that thermal windows are no longer allowed with Euro 7. The reason for this problem was laid down in the Euro 6, but this is – some people would say –basically a decision of the past. But there is one big problem, which is the reason for this debate, and this is the reporting of the ICCT, which shows that despite this huge scandal, despite the court ruling, there are still almost 17 million cars circulating which most likely still have the Dieselgate defeat devices. Nothing is being done to remove them or fix them. And this is absolutely unacceptable and we definitely need adequate and effective actions for that.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, just a few decades ago, natural resources seemed inexhaustible in the eyes of our predecessors, and therefore they rarely showed an interest in production tailored to Earth's capacity. Today, the global ecological crisis, leading to serious climate change, threatens the existence of humanity itself. Through the unreasonable use of resources, human civilizations themselves have caused irreversible changes in the environment, as a result of which they themselves have disappeared. And it is naive to assume that we can avoid this fate if we do not change our attitude towards nature. Today, climate change, resource depletion and pollution have reached a critical point. As much as we don't want to, after overproduction and overconsumption, we will also have to set limits. And if we want to give a chance to the generations after us in the end, if we want the future to be possible tomorrow, we will have to risk and maybe pay a high price. But it's not comparable, I mean the price, to the casualties we count in every fire, drought, or flood. Victims who will become more and more if we continue to delay. It is our responsibility not to waste this chance, which may be one of our last, and I hope that everyone in this room understands what is at stake, how the laws discussed today cannot be postponed. Those, especially looking at the vulnerable, the poor and the working people, and how and how limited is actually the time we have to implement all these measures.

Madam President, the last few months have proven that no one is immune from corruption. It has no political preferences, no favorite country, no favorite institution. However, there is in this situation. I see three problems from the point of view of the European project and two solutions. Firstly, we cannot use the European Parliament as a cover for someone who has abused their powers or their position. Secondly, however, we cannot impute to him a responsibility that he does not possess. The European Parliament is neither an investigative body, nor a prosecutor’s office, nor an investigation. And thirdly, we cannot use the European Parliament for a springboard, for political populism, for cheap political dividends, but for the price to be paid by people from this building. And that is why the solutions are simple – an independent investigation by competent authorities to find out if there is a problem with these trips once. And a second time, making clear rules that do not rely on moral criteria. Clearly what is allowed and what is not allowed, so as not to fall into such absurd situations.

In fact, bicycles embody everything we want to achieve with the green transformation: decarbonisation, by way of example, improving the health of European Union citizens, reducing congestion, reducing noise in cities. My colleague is already talking about the economic benefits, about the big market that can be created, about the additional one million new sustainable jobs that will improve the well-being of the citizens of the European Union. But one aspect you missed: accessibility. After all, it is the cheapest and most affordable way to travel and can be enjoyed even by the poor. And this is extremely important. And maybe one more thing, the adjoining infrastructure. In many places in Europe it is simply missing. In my country, there are so many victims of road accidents, including cyclists. This strategy of saving a human life means we've done our job.

Madam President, I come from a region where people live two years shorter than the average European citizen because of the polluted air they breathe. Exactly, sir. And we have the oldest cars but many still find it more convenient to drive their personal 20 year old vehicle rather than use the public transportation, for example. Sophia, my capital often gets on top of the world air pollution charts. And I come from a region where the industry, however, considers transport electrification is an opportunity for growth, new jobs and better working conditions in the sector. As a chance to become stronger, more efficient and more competitive on a fast developing market. And I come from a region where people's low income is often a barrier to implementing new technologies, and affordability is a really serious issue. Strengthening targets and increasing investment in the supply of zero-emission vehicles will reduce the cost and make them more affordable for everyone, including for a second-hand buyers. Whether the market will shift to zero emissions is no longer a question. And it is our job to let that happen in Europe, by providing the legislative framework that is needed. The faster we act, the sooner we will see the benefits of our endeavours.

Mr President, Commissioner, LGBTI people living together and creating families raise a number of situations that our juridical system is not prepared for, from the right to free movement across different EU countries, taxation, social policies, the right to inheritance of your parents’ property and so on. And very often we forget about the juridical aspect of the debate. It’s not just about whether we like it or not, whether you approve it or not. We are talking about a real—life situation involving real people, and these situations are happening right now, not at some undefined moment in the future. The conservatives like to present the debate as a normal status quo versus the unknown new future. But the truth is that this status quo, as we have, it’s not stable, it’s not perfect; there are so many gaps in the current juridical system. People getting married in one country, they may be moving to another or having a child together, and they’re separating. These are trivial things happening to millions of people in the EU every day. Yet when we talk about LGBTI people in this situation, we really realise how incomplete and discriminatory our current juridical system is. It’s not about granting privileges, it’s about safeguarding children’s rights: the right to live in a loving family, to travel and the ability to see your relatives. So please, stop discrimination.

Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the rapporteur, of course, and all the shadows for the excellent work that they have managed to provide, because I am absolutely positive that especially after 24 of February, nobody’s going to underestimate the importance of this file since we are witnessing how peace and democracy depend on the level of security and on the strength of our critical systems, transport, energy, water and so on and so forth. Critical entities are the providers of essential services, and in this increasingly interdependent union they play an indispensable role in the maintenance of economic activities in the internal market. And I remember in the beginning of the negotiations that we were discussing the essence of the essential services. I’m glad that during this negotiations, this definition was finally precisely detailed, and it includes also the safeguarding of public health and safety, the environment, and not just the continuation of the economic functions. I’m also glad that in these negotiations we were guaranteeing the additional financial support to those critical entities. Now every Member State should be required to adopt a national strategy to guarantee the resilience of critical industries, to carry out regular risk assessment and based on this assessment, to identify critical entities. Also entities that provide services to six or more Member States will be subject to specific oversight. So I think that a lot of improvements were made, and I am sure that with the adoption of this legislation, we will be absolutely better prepared to face any future challenges before the European Union.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, over the past year we should all have seen that Europe’s prosperity is in direct relation with its independence – independence from imported fuels and energy sources. The war in Ukraine has forced us to take a hard look at problems that we have turned a blind eye to for a long time. On the other hand, the environmental catastrophe is not just knocking on the door, but it is making its way across the continent. Decarbonising transport offers excellent opportunities to take a step toward a real change. By shifting to a sustainable, renewable and efficient energy solution across all transport modes, the Union can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution to improve citizen’s quality of life and create new high-quality jobs while modernising and strengthening European industry and its competitiveness. And I want to thank Mr Ertug and Mr Warborn and of course, all the shadows, for their outstanding job on the two reports and to encourage my colleagues to support the outcome achieved in the TRAN Committee. And yes, I do realise that some measures might be painful, but paying the price today will guarantee our benefit tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner, I share the Commission’s own assessment that among the many unpredictabilities of this pandemic, one thing is certain: COVID—19 is here to stay. Scientists shows that the virus will continue to evolve, and the emergence of new variants is highly likely. That’s why we have to maintain a high level of readiness and to step up vaccination coverage with targeted efforts to reach those who are still not vaccinated. Over 90 million eligible people in the EU are still unvaccinated, including approximately 9 million aged 60 and above, thereby increasing the risk of mortality and emergence of new variants. Sadly, my home country, Bulgaria, is at the bottom of this ranking. Only 30% of all adults in Bulgaria have received the vaccines. What is worse is that the reason for this is not the lack of vaccines, it is the hesitancy among the population fuelled by the disinformation campaign. So my question to the Commission is, what concrete actions will you be taking to counter this? The real threat to the health and security of our citizens is in the social media and not some biolabs. It turns out that there was no need for any fancy weapons – millions of people have died just because of Facebook!