Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Over the last five years, a total of 500 people have been killed by floods in Europe, including in Valencia. Nature strikes relentlessly. It tears people to death and devastates entire regions. The flood destroys countless habitats and thus countless life dreams. All experts agree: The increase in these disastrous natural disasters is not linear in the future, but exponential. Disasters are therefore not only a national or regional matter, but are now and increasingly a European matter, based on the figures. This applies to information that something can happen, this applies to coordination when something happens, and this applies to aid for resilient reconstruction. In the face of these disasters and the increasing number of disasters, Europe must be more than a single market for goods. Europe must be a single market for solidarity. Victims in Valencia deserve it.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, We debate forest fires every year. Let's also talk about those who extinguish these wildfires: Our firefighters, especially the many volunteers. They deserve not only our respect, but also concrete support. They need strategies that can be implemented in practice, that make their use easier and not more difficult. Two points I would like to point out: One is the social statute of the many volunteer firefighters; It must not be an obstacle. Anyone who voluntarily protects our lives must not have any financial disadvantages due to the rules of social security. Second point – a difficult word: Fire hose couplings. A concrete example: While the Belgian firefighters use DSP couplings of the Guillemin system, the so-called Storz system is standard in Germany and the Netherlands, and these are direct neighbouring countries. This leads to the loss of valuable time during joint operations, and this can cost lives. Conclusion: Civil protection must be thought of more European than ever before. Let's work on it together!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, When a deuterium and a tritium hydrogen isotope merge in the plasma state at an extremely high temperature, energy is generated. Whether this energy can then generate electricity at an industrial level is perhaps one of the most interesting questions of our time. Fusion energy can play a promising role in combating climate change and in our energy sovereignty. The truth is, however, that this highly complex technology is not yet fully developed. Whether and when a first functioning fusion reactor will be created is not clear. The question is therefore: Should this technology, which could produce clean and safe energy, be supported or not? And if so, how? My answer is very clear: Yes, yes! Similar to battery and hydrogen, we should and must develop a European fusion strategy and, as soon as possible, create a separate legal framework that must be clearly separated from nuclear fission. Fusion energy does not pose the same risks as a nuclear reactor. In addition, the merger should be regulated in a risk framework adapted to it. For example, fusion plants produce virtually no nuclear waste. Their risks to public safety and the environment are much lower than those of nuclear fission. The mergers industry urgently needs legal certainty, i.e. a legal framework with which developers and investors can work in the coming years and which facilitates access to finance. Ladies and gentlemen, the United States and the United Kingdom have done just that. We, the EU, have excellent research institutions and the brightest minds in the world, a highly skilled workforce and, with ITER in Cadarache in southern France, the largest experimental fusion project on earth. Fusion energy can – and I believe it will – become a key technology. We have to act now, otherwise the music will play elsewhere.

Mr President! The images we are seeing right now from Eastern Europe are dramatic, and they remind me very much of what happened in Belgium in 2021. Our sympathy should therefore be with these people in Eastern Europe. And yes, it has a lot to do with climate change. Europe must show solidarity: We have two mechanisms, the Civil Protection Mechanism and the Solidarity Fund. I will tell you a little story about the Solidarity Fund, from my experience from 2021. A school was destroyed by the floods. The mayor wanted to rebuild this school. This school was built for $6 million. If it could or should have been built resiliently, it would have cost 10 million; The mayor didn't have that money, and that's why she wasn't built resiliently. So we need some kind of new fund, some kind of Climate adaptationFund that allows people to build more resilient. And then there's another problem. Maybe I should mention: Belgium received 87 million from the Solidarity Fund at the time – we had losses of up to 4 billion; So the realisation is that this solidarity fund is not working. But I want to break another lance for the firefighters. Many volunteer firefighters do this and help us and take care of our safety. But they lack a single statute, a social statute in Europe. For many firefighters, being a volunteer firefighter is now more expensive financially than not being one. We must therefore find a rule that this should be regulated at European level so that these volunteer firefighters continue to ensure our safety.

Madam President, Commissioner! Today, we are dealing with the European digital identity. It is a tool to be on the go digitally, to identify us or to perform services securely on the Internet. For it to work, this instrument must first be trustworthy and secure, otherwise it will not work. If that is the case – and the discussions we had in the committees on it were extremely complex, extremely technically complex, but also legally complex – if it works, and I firmly believe that it can be used to open bank accounts, rent cars, go to the authorities, make applications and much, much easier and safer on the Internet. Or you can use this identity, for example, so that young people can log in to social media platforms according to their age and that can also be ensured. The digital wallet – this wallet will make it much easier for us to prove who you are and what you can do online. I think that's a good thing. We need to keep full control over our data. We can also use pseudonyms, so do not become a glass citizen. And also something that is very important: The people who don't travel digitally won't be forgotten. We have put this into the regulation and guaranteed that there will be no disadvantages there.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, This proposal is about how we keep the driver's license or how we obtain it. I will perhaps explain this proposal to you from the point of view of a person living in the countryside or in a rural area. There were two things that are important to me or that are disturbing in what has been proposed: on the one hand, the limitation of driving licences for older people aged 70 and over to five years – a no-go. In a village, you drive your car to the bakery, girlfriend or doctor and not by tram, train or anything else. There you are dependent on the driver's license. That's why it's important not to limit it artificially. By the way, I think the same about the mandatory medical checks. We will try to vote this out in the amendments. The second point is something that I noticed very much as a border dweller: If you have a tractor there and you drive across the border with the tractor and your tractor license, a policeman stops you in the neighboring country and says: You are not allowed to continue this tractor here because your driver's license is not recognized here. The idea is therefore to obtain a Europe-wide tractor licence in order to reduce or avoid these problems. If this is not possible, one should at least consider mutual recognition of all tractor driving licences, so that the farmer crossing the border is not stopped by a police officer and sent back to his country, because Europe cannot manage to mutually recognise such a tractor driving licence.

Madam President, Commissioner! I don't think anyone here denies that health data is the most sensitive thing we actually hold in our hands. I will explain to you this file, which sounds very theoretical, using a practical example from my own family: Someone from my family had to go to a specialist in Germany to have their foot treated, and X-rays were taken there. However, she would have liked to have had a second opinion in Belgium with a specialist doctor, and the hospital in Germany could not send her this file, these x-rays, by e-mail button. The moral of the story was at the end that we were then sent the X-rays several weeks later, after the appointment in Belgium, by post and this family member then rightly said: In which world do we live in Europe? I am therefore in favour of this European area, where we are also sensitive to sensitive data. I am in favour of having a digital patient file, just as I am in favour of getting a doctor's prescription on your passport, for example, and thus being able to go to a pharmacy across borders. For all of this, I am. However, I am also in favour of us remaining the owner of our sensitive data. I'm more of a part of the team being cautious, and we should also make sure that every owner of their sensitive data remains.

Mr President, Commissioner! Each of us produces around 177 kilograms of packaging per year. For my small household with my wife and my two children, this means that we produce over 700 kilograms of packaging. This corresponds to about a full-grown horse, which therefore lives in my kitchen. Everyone here agrees that we need to reduce this. Everyone agrees that we must also recognize packaging as a raw material that we do not burn, that we do not ship to Asia, but that we recycle. But as with many things, here too: However, ambition must remain feasible. The Commission's text was too ambitious, as we hear in the debate. The left says that this is not ambitious enough, the right says that this is all rubbish – to use this term – and we say in the middle that we have to design it in such a way that it is feasible afterwards. I've talked to a lot of companies about this specific proposal, and a lot of people have told me it's not flexible enough and we need a little more time to create this recyclate market and redesign our product for packaging and create new packaging models. These companies have very different concerns at the moment than they have to deal with the packaging problem, but they will support it. But they tell us, makes it doable, makes it flexible, because if you stretch an arc too much, it breaks. The amendments for more flexibility are on the table. Let's vote for them tomorrow so that we can agree in the middle that this will be a good text that will reduce this mountain of waste.

Dear Vice-President Wieland, dear Commissioner Ferreira! As a Belgian and a child of a border region, I can tell you a lot about the borders that cross-border cooperation still encounters. The reason for this is often procedural differences that create legal uncertainty or simply prevent a joint project. I will give you two very concrete examples: Emergency interventions at the border still present difficulties when it comes to calling the nearest ambulance or heading to the nearest hospital when it is on the other side of the border in the other country. To make this possible – a cross-border rescue service – we need very complicated state treaties, at least in the case of my border region. It will take 11 years for it to happen, if at all. The same applies to the use of medical services in the neighbouring country. Again, it is still quite cumbersome to visit a doctor in the neighboring country or to get his services and the various medications reimbursed. Here, too, we currently need complicated agreements, which are still associated with cumbersome approval procedures. This must be done in particular in the area of health services; bureaucracy must never be above health. It is precisely here that Europe must show that it addresses people's practical problems. The instrument for border regions that we are now proposing here can help to reduce these problems and simplify procedures. Therefore, my appeal, dear Member States, does not stand in the way of this. Think about the people on the ground. Let's just make it. Bureaucracy needs to be cut. It's so simple.

Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen. Mr Vice-President, I do not agree with you. I think this decision to ban the incinerator from 2035 is a huge strategic mistake. No one denies that the electric car will play an important and central role in reducing our CO2 emissions in Europe in the future. But already putting everything on a single horse has nothing to do with strategic foresight, as you have just explained. The basic objective is correct: We need to achieve long-term climate-neutral mobility in Europe in order to achieve important climate policy goals. However, this needs to be made technology-neutral rather than allowing only one technical solution to be implemented by all. Otherwise, we do not take such an approach. Emissions trading, for example, is about achieving a specific CO2 reduction target and encouraging compliance. Companies are not required to take the route and the technology there. Why do we do it the other way around in the car? Such a decision kills innovation, and it is also not useful for climate protection as a whole, because the decision for the electric car completely loses sight of the fact that the CO2 balance is not advantageous, over the electricity to the production, this is ignored, and in my opinion this is a sign of enormous double standards. Nor does it help to simply ignore the fact that we are entering a new dependence on China – the raw materials and rare earths that are needed are refined there. Even the combustion engine would have continued to deserve a future with climate-neutral e-fuels, for example. Perhaps the use is not yet profitable, but in 2030 it may already be and perhaps also important for aircraft, trucks and ships. In any case, the European Commission is simply choking off any European innovation in this area. Other countries will be able to take advantage of this gap. I do not consider this to be far-sighted or wise, also with regard to the many jobs. Today in Cologne it is informed that Ford is rationalizing away jobs there. And then I haven't talked about the range, charging infrastructure, roads, route problems or the high acquisition costs. I am not against electric cars. However, I am fundamentally opposed to being banned from operating in a climate-neutral combustion plant in 2035. (the speaker speaks when the microphone is switched off). I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Those who manage to sustainably produce energy in sufficient quantities at reasonable prices will dominate the fight against climate change worldwide, guarantee the competitiveness of their companies and make our continent more independent from difficult partners. Ergo: Every penny in such energy infrastructure is therefore correct. Any acceleration in permitting periods for wind turbines, solar plants, storage capacities or hydrogen plants is the aim of REPowerEU. Energy infrastructure is at the heart of our economy and our social coexistence. We have to get this done and not risk a heart attack. The people at home, the CEOs and the workers of Europe expect this, and our children – the next generation – deserve it. The Committee on Regional Policy has taken responsibility for this and has pooled a package of more than EUR 90 billion to enable REPowerEU. I would like to thank all the negotiating partners here in Parliament, in the Commission, but also in the Czech Presidency of the Council. That was very intense. We have tried to improve the living conditions of people in Europe in the shortest possible time. Here, too, the following applies: Talk less and do more. We did.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, What is REPowerEU about? REPowerEU is about galloping energy bills and the question of whether Europe can shape its energy supply autonomously. Accordingly, we acted quickly and purposefully in this energy crisis. We have launched REPowerEU. We need to implement this now. Among other things, this strategy aims to become independent of Russian energy sources, and REPowerEU is also intended to help relieve the burden on people. It is about €300 billion, which is not nothing, but a lot of money. My area of responsibility, the Committee on Regional Policy, was specifically about EUR 27 billion. We are one of the funding options; In concrete terms, it means: We say yes for money for REPowerEU objectives, but we say, according to the method of the Structural Funds – this is very important. And another suggestion from the committee was that we could use unused funds from the last funding period. This is called €40 billion to support households and small and medium-sized enterprises. We can help in the short term. I think that's a good idea. However, this redeployment of the Structural Funds is a red line. It is important for our committee: Parliament is therefore ready. We can't screw this up. The people outside expect exactly that from us.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I come from Eastern Belgium, a border region in the heart of Europe. At this point I have already talked very often about the difficulties people have to deal with there when they live and live on the one hand and work on the other. Here are two examples: Special rules were reached for cross-border workers during the COVID pandemic to allow them to telework in their country of residence. However, these special rules have now been terminated with regard to tax treatment by the Member States. However, the home office is now a standard practice in many companies. Dear Commission, we need a solution, and it is very urgent. Otherwise, many people from the border regions will once again be disadvantaged on our European labour market. The second example deals with the border region mechanism, which allows border regions to apply the legislation of a Member State for a very specific project. This would greatly simplify many cross-border projects. Emergency interventions at the border still present difficulties when it comes to calling the nearest ambulance or heading to the nearest hospital when this is on the other side of the border. This can cause you to lose very important time. With the so-called border region mechanism, all this could be made much easier and implemented. Dear Member States who are not here now, but I say it anyway: Please stop the blockade, think about the practice of the local people. We need this mechanism. We expect the Member States to finally be able to move forward and negotiate in the spirit of the many border regions in Europe. And, last but not least, a personal word also on behalf of our group, my group: A heartfelt thank you to Constanze Krehl for the many years of excellent cooperation. Here are five words: Thank you and do it well!

Dear Mr President, dear representatives of the Council, dear Vice-President Timmermans! It is important and right that we now make the right decisions to make our mobility climate-neutral. The European Commission therefore proposes that by 2035 only new vehicles that are powered by a battery will be permitted. So far, so good. However, there are many unanswered questions that cannot be answered seriously or completely. Firstly: How climate-neutral is an electric car? Secondly: How can we generate enough electricity from renewable energy by 2035 to make the use of electric batteries truly climate-neutral? Or do we not have to import an extremely large amount of energy in the form of hydrogen or synthetic climate-neutral fuels anyway? Thirdly: Will we have built up the necessary charging infrastructure in 2035, especially in rural areas and in eastern Europe? Fourthly: Aren't we going into a very dangerous nickel, cobalt or lithium dependence, i.e. a new dependence on raw materials? Fifth: Will people with medium and low incomes be able to afford an electric car in the future? All these questions have not yet been satisfactorily answered. So I think it is daring to put everything on one horse – on the electric motor – now. No, I'm not against e-mobility. I am simply calling for a little more flexibility and, above all, for an open competition of technologies. Because openness to technology has always been a trump card and is also an opportunity here. I do not want combustion engine technology to disappear from Europe, including engineers and hundreds of thousands of jobs, while e-fuel is produced in China and, to a large extent, China has access to the raw materials we need for e-cars. What would be reprehensible if in 2035 the consumer had the choice between a much cheaper e-car than today and a hybrid with imported e-fuel? Both should be possible. Putting everything in the hands of a few countries like China is a way we shouldn't go. Climate neutral yes, but not with blinders.

Mr President, Commissioner Vestager, rapporteur Schwab! By 2030, we want to reduce 55% of our emissions. We even want to be climate neutral by 2030. However, this will only work if we take the many small and medium-sized enterprises, the SMEs, into this process and also support them. SMEs are the backbone of our economy. Without them, nothing works in Europe, not even the energy transition. If these companies want to invest in climate-friendly energy and energy efficiency, we need to support them much more governmentally, as well as with the products and goods they produce. Without state aid, this transition, this epochal transformation, will not work. We also need to support those companies that suffer the most from the current high energy prices. I therefore welcome the fact that the Commission has accepted the criticism, including from Parliament, and has revised its original draft guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy. More companies from more sectors, which suffer greatly from the currently high energy costs, can be relieved in the future. That's good and right. But, dear Mrs Vestager, perhaps your list is still too narrow. Take a look at the reality of these companies and expand this list of sectors where it is necessary or will be necessary! We need flexibility here, as you said in your speech. Climate protection must remain affordable for everyone and be an opportunity and not a burden for SMEs. It won't work otherwise. Every company that succeeds in this transformation is good for the climate and secures jobs in our villages and cities.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner! The future is made of courage. These 56 pages, these 353 conclusions of the conference have strengths and weaknesses. But they have a strength, and that strength is that they exist and that they have been worked out by many people together. This is the original idea of the European Union. I therefore ask three questions to the representatives of the Member States, who unfortunately are not represented here today, but I still ask them. Firstly: Do you want a Europe that better protects its citizens, for example in the health sector? Secondly: Do you want Europe to be taken more seriously at the international level? Thirdly: Do you want a more democratic Europe in which this Parliament becomes stronger, for example with a right of initiative? If you want that, then you have to agree to changes in contracts, for example in the health sector. Without an amendment to the EU Treaties, the EU has almost no way to effectively and efficiently fight a pandemic, for example. Believe me: I come from a border region and have experienced very strange and almost stupid situations there, when one country makes the one rule and the other country exactly the opposite. Or the still necessary unanimity of Member States in certain policy areas: It makes a significant contribution to the fact that we are simply not making progress on very important strategic issues, such as foreign or international tax policy. These 56 pages give us a very clear mission: We must now amend the Treaties on a number of important points. Dear Member States, be for a Convention, be for targeted Treaty changes, be courageous!

Mr President, dear Foreign Minister, dear Commissioner Vestager! I want to use this minute for an appeal. We all agree that climate protection can only be achieved if we invest massively, invest in a transformation of economic structures. The state – the EU – must help to take massive money into its hands and invest in this transformation. And between the money and the investments lies precisely these rules, these state aid rules, these state rules, which we define here today or which we must define in the future. So they are extremely important. I would like to see this as an appeal to design this aid in such a way that it will not only benefit the large companies or those who are already very advanced in their transformation process, but also the small and medium-sized enterprises that want to do just that, but which must be given the opportunity to do so. For this, we need to write the rules in such a way that small and medium-sized enterprises can benefit from them.

Mr President, dear Minister! Whoever says A must also say B. Or: Whoever says Interreg must also say ECBM. I come from a border region, I was Interreg negotiator for this House, and from practical experience I know very well that many cross-border projects simply fail because of legal and administrative obstacles, they do not arise. This is very frustrating for project promoters and the people living there. With this mechanism, it could all be much easier. Specifically, a border region can easily apply the legislation of the neighbouring Member State for a very specific, very well-described project. We heard examples of local transportation. In the health sector, too, it is often very difficult in border regions to bring an ambulance to the nearest hospital, which is located in the nearest foreign country, in an emergency. In my border region, therefore, complicated agreements between the Member States – even international treaties – were necessary to legally secure such rescue operations. With the mechanism proposed here, such concrete projects could be implemented much easier, much faster, much more cost-effectively. In short: We need solutions from the Member States. We as Parliament have been open to the Commission's proposal and have put forward constructive proposals for improvement. For those who are transported by ambulance, the question of the applicable law is of little interest to them. He wants and deserves a solution. We should work on this, and this mechanism could make it possible. There is no single reason not to do so.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Even at a late hour you can and must talk about important things. Brexit has now been a reality for a good eight months – a reality that does not represent a real advantage for anyone. I do not want to explicitly address the empty department store shelves in the United Kingdom or the slump in certain trade flows. Even in very specific regions in the Member States of the European Union, Brexit has very concrete negative consequences for companies and government institutions. It is precisely these regions, these Member States and small and medium-sized enterprises that the European Union has promised to support them through an aid fund when Great Britain leaves the EU. And we have this promise with the present Brexit Adjustment Reserve, this aid fund of EUR 5.5 billion. I would like to thank all the negotiating partners here in Parliament and the Council for their very constructive, flexible and results-oriented cooperation. We have found a well-engineered compromise that allows us to pay out aid to the regions and companies most affected by Brexit as early as this year. However, I would like to say one thing very clearly at this point: Although the 5.5 billion euros are a considerable amount, they can only partially absorb the overall economic damage. Those who receive money from the reserve will not be able to compensate for all the damage. But it is good and right that the European Union should also show solidarity on this issue. In terms of content, I would like to address only six points which were particularly important to me in the course of the negotiations and which are now also reflected in this reserve fund. Firstly: clear and measurable criteria for disbursing funds. It is important that we were able to agree on clearly measurable and meaningful criteria for the disbursement of Brexit aid. The funds must reach where they are actually needed. This is, on the one hand, the degree or intensity of the regions' trade relations with the United Kingdom, which has played an important role in this key. We have also reiterated the fisheries and coastal regions component. Secondly: The importance of fishing. Small-scale coastal fisheries, as well as local and regional communities dependent on fishing activities in UK waters, will receive at least 3.5 and 7 percent of the national allocation. In concrete terms, this means that the member states can of course allocate more, but not less. These are the six countries whose fishermen are most likely to be affected by Brexit and its consequences, and only these six. We have also been able to broaden the scope of the Regulation in the sense that those fishermen who fish outside UK waters and still suffer negative effects of Brexit can also benefit from funds from the Adaptation Reserve. Here we have explicitly had the southern French, Spanish and Portuguese fishermen in mind. And to make it clear again here and to make it clear using the example of Spain: The Spanish State can use unlimited resources from the reserve for the fisheries sector in so far as actual damage is proven, not only the 3 million that is listed as a so-called fish component in the calculation of the Spanish part. The following applies here: Calculation criterion is not equal to distribution criterion. And when condemned, Spain, in order to take this example again, receives around 80 million more than originally planned. Thanks to this flexible handling, we were able to meet the demands of the sector significantly, also from the southern countries. This was the explicit result of a really tough negotiation and it is a clear sign of the badly battered fishing sector on the one hand and a certain flexibility for the Member States on the other. A compromise is not perfect, but the negotiated solution was acceptable to both sides. Thirdly: the adjustment of the duration period for the costs incurred. We have ensured that this will take place from 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2020. December 2033. Fourthly: the distribution of resources. That was the elephant in the room, That was the difficult chapter. In many discussions, we have designed this so-called allocation key in such a way that the Commission's original proposal, which provided for a distribution according to the criteria of the first 4 billion, and not the last billion, has been amended so that the last billion has now also been distributed. In close cooperation between the political groups and the national delegations here in the House, but also with the Permanent Representations in the Council, we agreed on the method now used before the trilogue. The result has the advantage that all Member States also receive a share of the last billion, so that at the end of the day each Member State receives more. Fifth: The speed of payouts. We will pay in four tranches. First tranche, 1.7 billion, already in December of this year; EUR 1.3 billion in early 2022; 1.3 billion in early 2023 and the remaining 1.1 billion will be disbursed in 2025. We have also written in Article 5 of these criteria that small and medium-sized enterprises, self-employed and local communities are supported, that investment in job creation and reintegration into the labour market, including short-time work programmes or retraining, is possible. And we have written that investments in the Member States for customs controls and other controls that have become necessary after Brexit are also possible, by and large. And then, I come to the end, this is, in my opinion, a well-made compromise. I would like to thank you once again for the exchange and the very constructive discussions and negotiations with all the other negotiators here. It was a very intense time. We fought a lot for the best ideas and we unanimously adopted this text in REGI – a strong sign of cohesion in a difficult act. Brexit is and will remain a historic mistake, but we have ensured that the European Union acts with solidarity and stands by these people. Thank you for your support and thank you for your attention.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The people of Eupen in Belgium, Pepinster, Trooz, Erftstadt in Germany, Schuld or Bad Neuenahr or Venlo in the Netherlands, to name but a few, will not be able to forget July 14th and 15th. The flood came overnight and carried everything away. It was devastating. People have died, families have lost everything – without notice, without pity. People who lose everything through no fault of their own need help, fast and flexible help, including from the European Union. The activation of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism has already been very positive: Within a few hours, ambulances and helicopters from France, Italy and Austria came to the rescue. But we also need the strength of the European Union as a whole when it comes to repairing the damage and rebuilding it. It is precisely for this purpose that the Solidarity Fund was created in 2002. If damage is so great that regions or one country cannot rebuild on its own, the other countries should help it. A simple and very correct principle. The damage in Wallonia alone is estimated at up to 3 billion euros. Member States have not yet submitted their applications. The damage is still calculated in order to be able to get a possible picture. Mrs von der Leyen said during her visit to Pepinster on 17 July that European funds were available and that it was important to use them very quickly. We submitted this oral question for today's plenary session in order, firstly, to know whether the regions concerned can expect money from this Solidarity Fund, also in view of the fact that this fund has also been used this year to fight the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondly, Commissioner, I would like to know how quickly aid can be disbursed to the regions. Thirdly, I would like to know whether you also think that, in view of the significant increase in natural disasters, these funds are still a suitable instrument or whether we need to develop this fund further. The solidarity shortly after the catastrophe between the people was enormous, was exemplary. She was noticeable. We should not forget these people here and here. We should not abandon these people.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, You probably know people who want to build or renovate a house today. You probably know carpenters, bricklayers, roofers, electricians, plumbers who get up at five in the morning to build or renovate these houses, or company managers from 5- to 10-man or 10-woman companies who are at the heart of the construction industry. These people, like me, will certainly have told you in recent weeks what they are struggling with right now. Because either they do not receive any building material or at double prices. Here are some figures: For example, construction timber increased by 83 percent, roof slats and 46 percent, timber by 38 percent or steel by 150 percent. But why is that so? The reasons are to be found in international trade, the COVID-related production bottlenecks, another construction boom and even the bark beetle for wood. The market therefore determines where the scarce raw materials go, namely to the highest bidder. We are currently planning the renovation wave for Europe. However, building or renovating is simply impossible in these price developments and in this scarce offer. Hence the urgent question: Is the market calming down, i.e. are these developments of a cyclical or structural nature? The Commission urgently needs to address this issue. Commissioner Breton visited Infineon last week and is working on a strategy for the production of semiconductors in Europe. We also hope that the Commission will work on a strategy for securing or producing building materials at affordable prices. For example, wood is one of the very few raw materials that Europe itself has that grow in Europe. Whether exactly this wood now has to be exported to China or the USA, although the roofer can no longer find any wood here, is at least a question that you have to investigate. The many small and medium-sized enterprises, but also the families willing to build, expect that their problems will be taken seriously.