Speeches

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, I really appreciate the fact that finally the Commission put forward this Digital Networks Act. It was long awaited and it brings some really well-expected and well-defined improvements regarding harmonisation for the single market, regarding the spectrum policy, cybersecurity, resilience, so on and so forth. So, I really appreciate it and I'm looking forward for the debate and try to improve all of these topics. There remains a couple of things I want to address right now. One is the vision, as always, that the Commission puts a target on the Member States to develop the infrastructure because it says the Member States need to develop national plans for infrastructure. This is wrong, as usual, because the companies and the industry is the one who invested until now, not the Member States, who would never have enough money for that. So, we have to address the industry and give the right incentives for them to develop the infrastructure, but for this, we have to look at what they need. And here I think it fails a little because, one, it needs to address the competition issue – and I know that the Commission is working in silos, but they promised they stopped to do that – so even though it's not digital, it's competition, but you have to address this if you want to develop infrastructure. This is absolutely one thing. And the other one is the monetisation of the use of networks. Because in any other structure – in electricity, in energy, everywhere, in transport – when someone is using an infrastructure, it has to pay accordingly, and this is not solved yet by the Commission through its policies.

Mr President, according to our Rules of Procedure, I need to ask you for the referral back to the IMCO Committee so that we can start the interinstitutional negotiations.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, thank you for all your contributions to this debate. I have noticed once again that the challenges we had when we started to discuss this directive regarding the representation of the interests of third countries remain. The fact that it created a lot of expectation, a lot of people imagine that this is going to solve the illegal interference, or it is aiming to do so. It is not that: it is just an exercise of transparency in a European Union in which we have too little transparent information about who is paying for lobby activities meant to influence policy‑making. At the beginning, the Commissioner said that fewer than 1000 entities are going to be affected by this directive, because this is what we know. It is just a niche. It's just about the entities who are paid to lobby by sponsors originating as foreign governments or other organisations in which a foreign government has a direct interest. So it is not aimed at solving all the problems around foreign influence. We have an ecosystem of institutions in Member States, at European level, which are going to deal with the legal representation. This aim of this directive is just to open a window to show people who is paid by whom to influence policy‑making. It's legitimate, it's simple, it's something we can count on, and it's not targeting specific entities. It's just going to ask all those individuals, NGOs, companies who are conducting such activities to register and show exactly who they are representing. It is proportionate, it is minimum harmonisation and it is something fair and asked for by our citizens. I really hope that you will support this proposal tomorrow. And again, thank you very much to all those who have worked to bring forward the directive in this latest form.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, complex political decision‑making is not a flaw of democracy, it is one of its defining features. But complexity can obscure processes, and when things become hard to follow, trust becomes vulnerable. This is why transparency must be a shared political value; not a matter of right or left, but a matter of political necessity, and any responsible policymaker should be able to understand, when meeting an individual or an organisation, what interests they represent. Eight in ten Europeans are concerned about foreign countries' influence over the EU, so this directive is a first step to address this concern; a foundation for a potentially more ambitious framework in the future. As legislators, we have made some important changes and clarifications to bring more clarity and strength to the proposal, so let me now outline what our proposed changes actually deliver for citizens, for companies and for Member States. First, the concrete result: an interoperable, EU‑wide interface. It will be possible to see all registered entities across Europe, and it is providing interest‑representation services on behalf of third countries. National and regional registers will connect through a single technical infrastructure, making verification simple, fast and consistent. Second, the agreed text rests on minimum harmonisation. We set common EU standards without impacting Member States that already have robust systems. We create a genuine level playing‑field while respecting national choices. Third, we ensured a low bureaucratic footprint: Member States may keep their current registers and authorities. Reporting requirements remain minimal for individuals and entities. The goal is transparency, not new layers of paperwork. Fourth, we build strong safeguards against abuse and stigmatisation. Registration is mandatory, but not always public: in very specific cases where disclosure could endanger individuals or organisations because of the country they work for, we allow protection. This was essential and it is now clearly in the text. Fifth, we uphold high standards on fundamental rights. The directive respects human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout. We worked carefully, line by line, to ensure that this balance holds. Sixth, we kept proportionate sanctions; for failure of registration we propose administrative sanctions. So colleagues, this directive is not about ideology. It is not about suspicion or punishment. It is about ensuring that European democracy has the transparency it needs to remain strong in a difficult geopolitical environment. I thank all the political groups, and especially the shadow rapporteurs, who engaged in very hard and constructive discussions and hard work, and I ask for your support for tomorrow's vote.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, I welcome the Commission's digital package. Simplification done well should lead to efficiency and competitiveness. We must admit that our traditional precautionary approach has sometimes been disproportionate. We regulated some times before we innovated, and I am not sure this is a record to take pride in. Digitalisation drives economic success and economic success finances new technologies. Our precautions must become constructive and create a clear link between digitalisation and productivity. The real question is not how much infrastructure we build, but how we use it. We need automated factories, smart energy grids, computing power for research. The unpopular truth is that the loading speed of social media videos – or of the offers on platforms or entertainment in general – matter very little. Productivity matters more. So the next steps are crucial, and the Commission must take a bold approach to address the issues that industry once solved: the implementation of the measures proposed in the Draghi report, consolidation versus competition model in the telecoms market, reform of spectrum policy, just to name a few priorities. We should learn from past mistakes in which we hesitated to go through with bold policies, and we end up with 4G+ instead of 5G standalone, and that says it all.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, I see there is a lot of interest in this subject. I am happy to see that and a lot of very good ideas around. I think it is important because we have the responsibility to get the public procurement rules right. Nowadays, public money is a scarce commodity. We finance the green transition, we strive to grow sectors in Europe to break free from geopolitical dependencies, we want to rearm Europe. The competition for public funds will be fierce. So we need clarity on criteria to improve transparency and build trust. We also need flexibility. Prices rise, labour shifts – procurement rules must reflect reality: not with blank cheques, but with common sense. We should be able to adapt and evolve. We have in front of us a good, balanced text that is focused on efficiency, grounded in reality and aimed at delivering real value for Europeans. I encourage you to support it.

Mr President, Commissioner Ribera, colleagues, why are we here today debating the Green Deal? It began as a generous, forward‑looking idea, a vision of sustainability and innovation, a promise that Europe would lead industrially in the green transition. We told our citizens this was their license to growth and prosperity. Yet now, this vision feels tarnished. Today, for too many, it became a source of hardship, energy bills, cost of living, uncertainty of the jobs, no tangible benefits. Our industries are burdened by multiple taxes and a complex web of regulation. The idea behind the Green Deal remains valid, but we must take a step back to critically and pragmatically reassess the tools we are using. And while the Commission has pledged to improve the competitiveness of the EU, we must also ask: where is the money coming from? You have to be rich to afford a Green Deal. Our investment model relies on a combination of public resources and excessive taxation or penalties, rather than fostering conditions where private investors are encouraged to channel their money into building new markets. Looking at our global competitors, we see a different approach, one that incentivises rather than penalises industries, attracting private investment, fostering innovation and building markets for the future. So if we want the Green Deal to succeed, it must be an engine for growth, for our people, for our industries and for Europe as a whole. It must work for everyone.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, disinformation and misinformation are like cracks in a foundation. Small at first, almost invisible, but if left unchecked, they can spread and erode trust, weakening the very structures that hold our societies together. Today, the cracks are amplified on very large online platforms – the town squares of our digital age. Over the last decade, the role of these platforms has grown immensely. They are no longer just tools for entertainment. They have become gatekeepers of information, influencing elections and even shaping global events. With such immense influence comes immense responsibility. Platforms must take ownership of their power they hold and ensure their digital spaces are safe, transparent and accountable. Here, in the European Union, we have one of the most advanced regulatory frameworks in the world. Yet a rule book is like a compass: it points us in the right direction, but the real work lies in taking action. The challenge now, first, is ensuring effective enforcement and implementation, starting by building expertise at the institutional level across the European Union. Second, social networks cannot afford to stand on the sidelines. If they are to function in the European Union market, they must become partners – partners to the institutions, authorities and society as a whole. And this is not a regulatory requirement. It is a shared responsibility.

– Mr President, Members, thank you for the debate. The atmosphere is sombre, I would say, because of what is going on and also a bit of a negative feeling I can detect in all the speakers. At the last summit we had, EU-CELAC, the UN, partner countries in Latin America and the Caribbean agreed on the need to support Haiti in tackling the dire humanitarian crisis and in paving the way towards security and stabilisation. For countries like Haiti, the proliferation of illicit small arms and light weapons is at the origin of the strength of the gangs and is detrimental to the achievement of sustainable peace, security and socio-economic development, including in the rest of the region. Therefore, the summit declaration included specific provisions on the fight against illicit arms trafficking, which is instrumental to curb domestic and transnational organised crime, drug trafficking, trafficking in persons, money laundering, the illegal exploitation of natural resources, and domestic violence. In the same declaration, we also stressed the need to consolidate and strengthen the EU-CELAC cooperation initiatives in the field of citizen security and social justice, such as EU-LAC Partnership on Justice and Security. On these themes, the EU is ready to do its part. Regarding the participation directly to the multinational security intervention (MSSM) in Haiti, I should remind you that the EU’s support could consist in actions that support the mission and indirectly, notably with complementary actions that could provide an enabling environment for the work of the mission or help the sustainability of its results. Prospects for a direct EU contribution in terms of equipment and personnel would depend directly on the readiness of the EU Member States to contribute, and in any case, we should stress that the EU is already providing significant and indirect support to the Kenyan Defence Forces through the European Peace Facility to increase their capability in order to participate in peacekeeping operations, and we hope this is the case now. So thank you very much for the debate, President, that is all.

– Mr President, honourable Members, almost three years after the assassination of President Moïse, the multilayered crisis in Haiti rages on. We read with concern the latest report by the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti about rampant insecurity, the strength of armed gangs and the limited capacity of state institutions to restore security and rule of law. The capacity of gangs to gather large quantities of arms and ammunition is of particular concern, and violent incidents – including killings, kidnappings, sexual violence – persist with alarming impunity. There is an urgent need to take action to stop the illegal proliferation of firearms and ammunition in the country. This is an area where the European Union is willing to continue offering its support to Haiti, and other Caribbean countries facing similar challenges. Innocent citizens continue to pay the highest price. A chronic security, economic and political crisis, exacerbated by natural catastrophes, has led to the current humanitarian crisis in Haiti. Today, more than 40 % of the Haitian population suffers from acute food insecurity. Recurrent cholera outbreaks continue to claim numerous victims. The Haitian state cannot be left alone in its fight against the gangs and the multifold crisis the country needs to address. Haiti’s international partners, including the United Nations, have a crucial role to play. The resolution of the United Nations Security Council, passed on 2 October last year, authorising a multinational security mission in support of Haiti to be led by Kenya, was an important and long-overdue breakthrough. The same resolution indicates the need to create effective accountability mechanisms to protect human rights, and to avoid the mistakes made during the previous UN-led mission, MINUSTAH, which ended in 2017. The EU has taken note of the recent ruling of Kenya’s High Court on the proposed deployment of Kenyan police to lead the mission. We are awaiting with interest the response of the Kenyan Government to enable the mission to proceed. The European Union will continue to provide support for Haiti’s stability, development and better integration in the Caribbean region. Our cooperation and humanitarian envelope for Haiti is by far the largest in the Americas. Despite the many difficulties in implementing our programmes, the European Union remains committed to play its part alongside our international partners, and will continue supporting the broader objectives of a multinational support mission once it is deployed – restoring stability, supporting governance, both indirectly through our cooperation instruments, and directly through our support for the Haitian National Police. Alongside the security track, it is important to continue pursuing a political solution to take the country out of the current crisis. We welcome the active involvement of regional organisations, particularly the CARICOM and the Organization of American States, supporting a Haitian-led political solution built on the basis of a constructive dialogue between the Government and the Opposition. Unfortunately, we regret to see how the Haitian parties have failed to come together around a credible solution to the current institutional impasse. Haitians deserve better than this. We urge, therefore, the main political stakeholders to engage in a genuine dialogue and renew their efforts to find an effective compromise, with the ultimate goal to prepare the country for credible and inclusive elections once security conditions will allow.

– Mr President, thank you very much, dear Members, for a lively discussion and also for a broad support for the idea and for this proposal. I’m really happy to see that apart from the divergent views on some specific issues, the Parliament, I’m interpreting, is ready to support our proposal. A few words on some of the issues which were raised. Again, we are talking here about a package. We would have loved to see the whole package adopted at the same time. All the package elements will work together to ensure road safety. On the other hand, each proposal is a different tool, which, together with the others, will create a basket of tools to address road safety. So, from this perspective, driving licences focus on skills and training, and the cross-border enforcement focuses on better enforcement of road safety offences. Driving disqualifications focus on the most severe offences which should result in driving disqualification in the Union. We paid a lot of attention to subsidiarity. On the other hand, of course, it is not possible to have a Union-wide effect without a Union intervention. But I would say balance is in the text, preserving Member States’ competence and especially thanks to the grounds for refusal. It was a discussion about the penalty points under the scope of the directive; I’ve noticed the willingness in the recitals of the adopted report to assess the feasibility of eventually including the so-called demerit points under the scope of the directive. While I see the good intention behind this request, let me recall you that such point systems are, by their very nature, designed as long-term solutions to sanction perpetrators of repeated minor offences, with different seriousness assigned to them. As opposed to this, the proposal primarily concerns people who are committing the most serious offences in transit that should lead to their immediate disqualification. Again, these are a couple of remarks. It is indeed a file which will bring concrete understanding and positive effects, I would say, for all citizens and all those who are sharing the roads, let’s hope in a safer way. Thank you very much for the debate and I really hope that you will vote on this, even though I’m sorry it’s not going to be adopted in this legislature because the Council is delayed. But what you are going to send with your report is a strong signal that it is needed, and I think the citizens will understand this signal.

– Mr President, honourable Members, let me start by thanking Mr Vitanov and the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) for the excellent report on the proposal for a directive on the Union-wide effect of certain driving disqualifications. As you know, this proposal is an integral part of the Road Safety Package, which the Commission adopted in March 2023, and it has close links to the Driving Licence Directive and the Directive on cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences. The legislative framework created by these three pieces of legislation should be seen as vital to getting closer to reaching our goal of zero fatalities or serious injuries on European roads by 2050. It will guarantee the high standards of skills and fitness of our drivers. It will also enable us to react in case certain individuals break the rules, putting themselves and other road users at risk. On that note, please allow me to ask a question: what is the main purpose of this proposal that we are discussing today? Of course, it is about driving disqualifications, but it is first and foremost about safety and fairness. When it comes to safety, the efficient enforcement of driving disqualifications has clearly shown that it is a strong deterrent against major road safety—related traffic offences. Studies suggest that efficient enforcement not only increases the compliance of drivers who get sanctioned, but also shows to the wider driver population the risks they are taking should they decide to breach the law. Secondly, let’s talk about fairness. Currently, for the same offence, a driver can be disqualified in the territory of the whole Union or simply in the territory of the Member State where the offence took place. This depends in which Member States his or her driving licence was issued. In the latter case, such a driver will be able to go to other Member States and continue driving as if nothing has happened. This situation is clearly unfair. Why should we keep allowing dangerous drivers on our roads? Putting an end to such unjustified differentiation of treatment would be the other core objective of our proposal. There are also other important elements of fairness in the text – the grounds for refusal. We should ensure that our proposal remains reasonable, focusing on the most severe offences, and takes into consideration the differences we have between road traffic rules in the Member States. At the same time, the proposal also establishes clear conditions under which Member States can refuse a request to disqualify a driver. For example, if the offence committed would not be sanctioned with a driver disqualification in the Member State which issued the driving licence, or in the event that there are doubts or evidence of a breach of fundamental rights of the driver. Our proposal also contains safeguards for ensuring drivers’ rights, in particular when it comes to access to information, defence and data protection. In conclusion, safety and fairness are the two elements that this proposal is all about. Ensuring safety by showcasing that everyone should respect the rules on the European roads and that no one enjoys impunity, should they breach those rules are very important as well. We also want to guarantee that offenders are treated on an equal footing. I look forward to an interesting debate, and I count on the adoption of your report tomorrow, as it will be as an important step to improve safety on the roads.

– Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank Mr Moreno Sánchez. The Commission welcomes the very balanced European Parliament implementation report on the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, which reflects the overall success this agreement has been and the benefits it delivers every day. On 21 September 2023, we celebrated the sixth anniversary of CETA’s provisional application – and there was a lot to celebrate! In six years of CETA’s provisional application, the increase in trade on both sides of the Atlantic is remarkable. Trade in goods increased by 66%. Agricultural trade increased by 54%. Trade and services reached a new record high in 2022, with a 62% increase and both sides benefit, and across EU Member States – big and small ones. CETA has helped us to jointly resist pressure on supply chains in the challenging past four years through a pandemic, economic tensions and Russia’s war against Ukraine. During the pandemic, Europe showed its solidarity by exporting vaccines to Canada, and CETA has been crucial in our respective efforts to diversify away from Russia since February 2022. Imports from Canada went up by 25% during 2022, notably for raw materials and energy products. For example, our imports of fertilisers went up by 225%. At the same time, Canada has been a key market for our products affected by sanctions. EU exports to Canada of its products increased by 45%. That is also closely interlinked with new initiatives we are engaging in with Canada. Already we have a strong strategic partnership on raw materials, and recently we also sealed the digital partnership and EU-Canada Green Alliance. Canada will also formally become associated to Horizon Europe in 2024. We should also flag that the European Commission has now started the process of a detailed ex-post evaluation of CETA, including a lot of stakeholder consultations, to fully analyse what works and what does not, and draw lessons for the future. Also, count on our close exchanges with the European Parliament in this process. CETA is a real success story, but let’s not be complacent. It is working very well, but it is still only provisionally applied and CETA at this stage is not yet fully in force, but only provisionally applied. As of 1 January 2024, only 17 of the 27 Member States have fully ratified it, and we want to see it ratified by all Member States at national level to ensure full entry into force, as only this would allow to fully reap all the benefits of this agreement.

– Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission would like first to thank Parliament, and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Berendsen, for this important report. We fully share the view that we need to support and improve the competitiveness, resilience and twin green and digital transition of EU ports and of the whole EU transport sector. This will allow the sector to grow in a way that is sustainable, both in social and environmental terms. We highlighted from the very beginning of this mandate, these priorities, in our strategy for smart and sustainable mobility, in which we lay the ground for the future strategic development of the entire transport system, including the ports. The strategy confirms that ports, as transport and logistic hubs, are key for our internal and international connectivity, for military purposes, for our economy, for reducing the CO2 emissions and pollution from transport. In line with the requirements in the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation, ports will provide clean fuels and electricity to ships. They will also contribute to the energy transition by becoming sustainable energy hubs – for example for offshore wind, for the production and import of hydrogen, for carbon capture and storage. This is why, at the request of the European Parliament, the Commission launched a pilot project – the Port Electricity Commercial Model – to be finalised in the first half of this year. The project has already identified several clean energy business models that reduce emissions from port operations, including onshore power supply. These models, which could be replicated across the EU, are primarily reliant on increased electrification. The European economy benefits from the international trade and foreign investments that ports attract, and which help create jobs and growth. European companies are, for example, among the world leaders in maritime transport and logistics. However, we need to ensure that investments from third countries do not lead to strategic dependencies and do not pose risks to European security and public order. The existing Foreign Direct Investment Screening Regulation already equips EU with a framework and common criteria to identify and assess risks linked to the foreign acquisition or control of strategic assets, including in transport, energy and communication infrastructures. Looking back on the last three years of implementation of FDI screening, the Commission was notified of more than 1 200 such cases by Member State authorities, with some also concerning transactions linked to critical infrastructure. At the same time, it is concerning that not all Member States have a national mechanism in place. Building on these experiences, the Commission will propose a revision of the FDI Screening Regulation. We look forward to work with the legislators to ensure that the EU rules for FDI screening remain fit for purpose and allow for a better and more consistent identification and mitigation of risks to security or public order for certain foreign investments. The Economic Security Strategy also reiterates the Commission’s call to all Member States which have not yet implemented national FDI screening mechanisms, to do so without further delay. The main objective of the revision will be to ensure that all Member States screen foreign acquisition of EU companies active in sensitive sectors, and improve the functioning of the current screening mechanism between Member States and the Commission. The revision of the Ten-T Regulation, agreed by the co-legislators in December last year, gives increased importance to maritime transport and ports by creating a European maritime space, the maritime dimension of the Ten-T. Ports’ more prominent role in the energy transition is also reflected in the addition of a number of ports to the Ten-T network. However, let us also acknowledge that attaining our ambitious objectives of the 24 ports will require significant investment in the coming years. The revision also includes a provision on the control of foreign investment in transport infrastructure, and notably on the construction of transport infrastructure by third country companies. The political agreement requires Member States to make all possible efforts to ensure that Ten-T infrastructure is protected against those threats. They must assess the potential risks arising from third-country participation or contributions to a project of common interest, and take appropriate countermeasures. Their assessment should in particular focus on the supply for the building, operation and maintenance of infrastructure, as well as access to sensitive information, including personal data. Assessments must also address third-country capabilities to control such information in conjunction with the building, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. Together with other instruments, the examples that I have mentioned today show how we have taken action to strengthen the control of foreign influence on the European economy, including imports, and to bolster our resilience. The Commission has recognised the need to ensure the resilience of ports to the threat posed also by organised crime and drug trafficking, through October’s EU roadmap to fight drug trafficking and organised crime within the EU Port Alliance. The priorities of the roadmap include closer cooperation between customs authorities, law enforcement, public and private actors in ports, which will increase the resilience of ports against criminal infiltration. I am pleased to announce that a launch event of the public-private partnership with ports will be held on the 24 January in Antwerp. This will be the occasion to kick off the work of this important initiative, with the aim of building a level playing field against criminal infiltration in ports. The Commission remains open to considering options for further action if they are balanced, respect international obligations and agreements and can bring clear added value to our existing strategies and tools. However, any such initiatives would be for the next Commission to decide and would require thorough preparation, including stakeholder consultation and possible impact assessment.

– Mr President, honourable Members, the debate today illustrated the importance and complexity of the situation in Ecuador. Tackling the crisis in Ecuador requires addressing the immediate security situation, as well as the social, political and structural problems that have fuelled the violence over the past years. Corruption, poverty, lack of opportunities and social inequalities are breeding grounds for criminal activities. As we collaborate with the Ecuadorian Government in its efforts to restore order, we will also continue looking together into long-term solutions, allowing the people in Ecuador, especially children and teenagers, to live free from the shadow of organised crime and prosper in a peaceful, secure and democratic country.

– Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, today I do not want to just express our deep concern about the situation in Ecuador, but, above all, to express our solidarity with the people of Ecuador and our firm condemnation of the violence and criminal attacks carried out by armed groups in Ecuador. On 10 January 2024, gangs rioted in prisons, attacked security forces and invaded a live TV news broadcast. Violence was concentrated in Guayaquil, one of the major Latin American ports in the Pacific and an important export hub for drugs, where at least eight people were killed, as gunmen looted businesses and entered public buildings, including five hospitals. Coordinated uprisings took place in several penitentiaries, resulting in 141 members of prison staff being held hostage and in a mass outbreak of prisoners. As the country plunged into violence, President Daniel Noboa, declared a state of internal armed conflict. This allows him to widely mobilise the armed forces in the fight against organised crime. He designated 22 criminal groups as terrorist organisations, and instructed the armed forces and police to fight them. The National Assembly approved the decree by unanimity in a display of unity and support to the government. On 8 January 2024, President Noboa had already declared a state of emergency after one of Ecuador’s most wanted criminals escaped from prison. José Adolfo Macías Villamar, also known by the alias ‘Fito’, the founder and convicted leader of the ‘Los Choneros’ gang, vanished from his cell in Guayaquil on 7 January 2024 just before being transferred to a maximum security facility. Since then, 329 people have been arrested. Ecuador has witnessed states of emergency before due to the growing influence of gangs involved in drug trafficking, prison control, institutional corruption and the expansion into new criminal enterprises. However, President Noboa’s declaration of armed conflict with gangs is unprecedented in the country’s history. The EU supports Ecuador and its Government and democratic institutions in their efforts to restore public order, defend the rule of law, protect human rights and guarantee citizens’ security. Organised crime poses a direct threat to the resilience of public institutions and to democracy, prosperity and social cohesion of Ecuador. It must not be allowed to prevail. The EU categorically condemns this wave of violence. We reiterate our solidarity with Ecuador, its Government and its people, and express solidarity with the victims. We will work with Ecuador to strengthen our cooperation, financial assistance and collaboration with European law enforcement and investigation agencies to reinforce Ecuador’s ability to fight against transnational organised crime. The fight is not just a national issue, it is an international challenge that impacts directly on the EU and our societies and requires coordinated efforts on a global scale, from the countries of origin to those of transit and final destination of drugs and illegal benefits, including tax havens. The transnational nature of these crimes and these criminal networks demands that we all, including us in Europe, pool resources, intelligence and expertise to fight and eradicate them. Drug trafficking and organised crime linked to it are a threat to all societies, their prosperity, security and democracy. Europe needs to reinforce its cooperation with partners in the fight against drug trafficking in Ecuador and elsewhere. Ecuador may seem very far away from Europe, but in today’s interconnected world, we need to pool efforts and resources to defend our societies and democracies against organised crime. Honourable Members, the EU started to strengthen its cooperation with Ecuador in security matters, including the fight against transnational organised crime, years ago. This includes both policy dialogue and concrete cooperation assistance. In 2023, the EU signed a memorandum of understanding with Ecuador that will allow us to deepen cooperation on various policy areas, including on security. Last autumn, Europol signed a working agreement with the Ministry of the Interior of Ecuador, which will strengthen real—time cooperation. In February 2023, Commissioner Johansson visited Ecuador with the Belgian Minister of the Interior, Annelies Verlinden. They met with the President and several ministers, Foreign Affairs, Interior and Defence, and they visited the Port of Contecon in Guayaquil. The visit reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to support the security sector in Ecuador through our regional programmes EL PAcCTO, COPOLAD EUROFRONT and SEACOP. Specific cooperation activities, including emergency support for prison security and assistance for port security in Guayaquil, were initiated in 2023. These are just recent examples. In addition, the negotiations of the EU agreement with Ecuador on the exchange of data with Europol, which will bring operational cooperation to the next level, are ongoing. However, we must do more, and that is why we plan to mobilise new funds for 2024 to build up state and community resilience in some of the most affected areas of the country. I will stop here. I am looking forward to your remarks.

– Madam President, with such a sacrifice for the House, not giving the catch-the-eye possibility, I will try to be very brief. Again, thank you very much for your support. I am really keen and proud of this proposal. I do believe it’s one of its kind. Why? Because sustainable alternative fuels for aviation – this is a no brainer, this is the easiest way to decarbonise aviation while maintaining the connectivity and increased demand for this very important part of our transport sector. So this is quite something, a good idea from an industrial angle because it creates jobs, it creates new business opportunities in developing the volumes we need for these sustainable alternative fuels. It could have been done in other ways. I don’t know. In the United States, there is another approach to incentivise the use of sustainable alternative fuels in aviation. But we took a European approach. That’s who we are. We set targets. But these targets need, actually, to create demand and not to impose a burden. So we hope that by creating the demand, we will create the supply, the industry to provide these sustainable alternative fuels and then solve the problem in an easy way, an industrial Approach. Thank you for all your comments and I really hope that you will be proud to support this initiative and we will see results in the future in decarbonising the aviation sector in a smart way, while not diminishing the connectivity and demand in this sector. Thank you very much again for your support and I wish you a successful vote tomorrow.

– Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to start by sincerely welcoming the trilogue agreement reached and ask for your support for ReFuelEU Aviation. This is nothing less than a ground-breaking initiative for aviation and the fight against climate change. Sustainable aviation fuels represent the future for aviation. And we are taking this very seriously because the aviation sector is critical to the European economy, providing millions of jobs and ensuring connectivity of our people and businesses across the continent and beyond. ReFuelEU Aviation is a bold and ambitious plan to increase the use of sustainable aviation fuels in the EU from virtually nothing today to 6 % by 2030 and up to at least 70 % by 2050. It also includes dedicated sub-targets to accelerate the development of synthetic aviation fuels, which are the most sustainable and scalable fuels. The benefits of these proposals are clear. By increasing the use of SAF, we can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of aviation and contribute to the EU’s climate goals. This measure on its own is projected to reduce aircraft CO2 emissions by at least 60 % by 2050 compared to a baseline scenario. The increased use of SAF will also have tremendous health benefits for our society due to increased air quality. It will help reduce non-CO2 pollutants locally and in the air. This is especially important for those communities living closer to airports. This new regulation will also boost the industrialisation and growth of our regions, creating thousands of new jobs in the clean energy sector and bringing growth and prosperity to the regions of our union. We have always considered the impact of this regulation on consumers and airlines. The different mechanisms we have put in place, like the SAF allowances, will ensure a fair and proportionate approach and will help make SAF competitive economically. With this unprecedented proposal, which complements other ambitious measures like strengthening the EU Emissions Trading System and the revision of the Energy Taxation Directive, both of which will incentivise the shift towards cleaner fuels and aircraft technologies, we are sending a powerful signal to the international community that we are serious about our climate commitments and that we are willing to take the lead and make concrete steps to make this a reality. If plenary approves this agreement, the European Union will become the front-runner in the world to create a stable legal framework to use sustainable alternative fuels. I want to take this opportunity to thank all Members of Parliament who worked on this proposal and helped us to deliver an even stronger, more credible and more ambitious regulation. Of course, my particular congratulations go to Mr Bauzá Díaz, as the rapporteur of this proposal, and Mr Gade, as his predecessor. This ambitious compromise you have forged is the result of extensive, honest and constructive discussions across the political groups and the institutions and the industry, the sector, as a whole. Stakeholders from all sides have welcomed the provisional political agreement as both ambitious and realistic. In particular, I want to thank the European Parliament for preserving the European approach and in defending this key element of the Commission proposal so fiercely, Parliament has reaffirmed once again that we are stronger together than the sum of our individual ambitions – and now, more than ever. I look forward to your vote on the approval of this regulation tomorrow, to show the world that the EU continues to be the leader in the fight against climate change, and we can do that through an industrial approach towards developing and being smart about how we are going to reduce emissions in transport. So thank you very much, congratulations for your result.

– Madam President, dear Members, this has been a very interesting exchange. I have taken good note of your comments. I will also pass them to my colleagues, Commissioners Simson and Sinkevičius. We look forward to the formal adoption of the three ‘Fit for 55’ files in the coming weeks. Accelerating the uptake of sustainable alternative fuels and increased energy efficiency are both cornerstones for achieving our 2030 climate ambition. It’s also an effective contribution to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels imports and improve energy security and air quality in the EU. On industrial emissions, I hope that Parliament will adopt its mandate for the trilogue negotiations this week. A trilogue agreement is still possible before the end of 2023. As always, the Commission remains available for support in this process. Thank you very much, and I wish you a successful session of Parliament.

– Madam President, honourable Members of the Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate and tomorrow’s vote shows that we are delivering on our Green Deal ambition. Let me start with the two proposals on industrial emissions. I want to thank the rapporteur Mr Kanev, the ENVI Chair Mr Canfin and all the shadow rapporteurs for the work on this file. The Commission supports the ENVI report for many core elements of our proposal, notably ensuring more consistent emissions limits across the EU, promoting resource efficiency, facilitating public access to information, and making the legislation more forward—looking with better links to innovation. The European Parliament has been discussing the widening of the scope to cover more livestock farming activities. The Commission would like to stress that this widened scope would only concern the largest livestock farms. This would help relieve the pressure on the smallest farms in meeting the overall climate adjustment efforts required in the agricultural sector. Turning to the two transport files, I welcome the compromise text on the new Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation and the FuelEU Maritime Regulation. On both files we have an ambitious and a balanced result. I would like to thank the rapporteur Mr Warborn and the former rapporteur Mr Ertug, as well as the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent work and the good cooperation with the Czech and Swedish presidencies and as well with the Commission. The AFI Regulation will ensure a market—driven rollout of sufficient and user—friendly alternative fuels infrastructure everywhere in the EU. We also have for the first time mandatory deployment targets for key recharging and refuelling infrastructure, and these include electric recharging infrastructure for light and heavy—duty vehicles on the road, hydrogen refuelling infrastructure for road vehicles, onshore power supply in TEN—T ports in alignment with FuelEU Maritime, and electricity supply to stationary aircraft in all TEN—T airports. As you know, we would have appreciated higher targets for heavy—duty vehicle recharging and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure. But the end result is very good considering the starting position of the Member States. The FuelEU Maritime Regulation will play a crucial role in decarbonising the maritime sector. Importantly, FuelEU Maritime remains an incentive and goal—based regulation. It keeps the door open to new technologies and allows technology suppliers to develop solutions, meeting the needs of different shipping segments. It also recognises the role e—fuels will play in the future and provides incentives to support their cost—competitiveness and uptake. FuelEU Maritime also provides the inspiration for regulating shipping emissions globally. Following the milestone decision at the 80th meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee which concluded just last week, a global fuel standard modelled on our European approach should be adopted by 2025 as one of mid—term measures to decarbonise shipping by mid—century. The Commission also welcomes the agreement reached on the proposal for the recast of the Energy Efficiency Directive. We convey our warmest thanks to the rapporteur Mr Fuglsang and the shadow rapporteurs for their efforts in reaching this result. This is a major piece of the EU’s energy policy. By boosting energy efficiency, the EED recast provides the EU with a solid framework to reach our climate goals and to increase our energy independence. We welcome the agreement on an ambitious energy efficiency target of 11.7% covered by a strong governance mechanism and an annual energy savings obligation target of 1.49%, as well as the target for energy reduction in the public sector of 1.9%. In conclusion, I would like to thank you again for the constructive work on these five proposals, all very relevant to implement the European Green Deal.

– Madam President, honourable Members, that was interesting. I’m supposed to say a few words as a conclusion. I would like to recall that the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation is still a relatively new framework. The flexibility in it was considered necessary when the file was negotiated back in 2018-2019. We’re still early days in the development of our ambitious sustainable finance agenda. Now, a few years later, we look at the agreement with different eyes and with much more experience of ESG. The launch of a comprehensive assessment, including workshops with industry and other stakeholders’ groups and a public consultation, will be an opportunity to take stock and see how the framework can be improved and to address, if deemed necessary, some of the shortcomings reported in the press. A word on aviation, since I am a Transport Commissioner and it happened that I’m attending your debate today. Aviation remains a key sector for our industrial competitiveness and for the connectivity and single market. Its decarbonisation is set on a clear course towards carbon neutrality, both with our ReFuelEU aviation blending mandate, with sustainable fuels, the ETS reform and kerosene taxation. All offer a strong regulatory framework for this decarbonisation path. However, without funding for new clean technologies and best-in-class aircraft, this decarbonisation will slow down. Companies will be less competitive and will be stuck with old polluting planes. That is why we are currently reflecting on the scope of activities to be covered in the next delegated act on taxonomy, and we are assessing the report by the Platform on Sustainable Finance. So, this being said, I really appreciate your contribution to the debate and, in the future, your support for this very important topic.

– Madam President, honourable Members. Thank you, Mr Fernández, Mr Tang, for the question on the functioning of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation. Several European media outlets have recently reported about investments in fossil fuel or aviation activities by funds that categorise themselves as sustainable under the SFDR, therefore triggering doubts on the appropriateness of that to fight greenwashing. The SFDR started to apply in March 2021. Additional implementing measures have just come into effect on 1 January this year. The SFDR was intended purely as a disclosure regime. The Commission considers that it has been successful in helping structure the way financial intermediaries communicate about the ESG features of financial products they manufacture or sell. However, we are aware that the financial services industry is using it as a labelling scheme instead of as a framework for disclosures. On question one, on continued greenwashing in financial markets, one of the SFDR’s main objectives is to prevent greenwashing by promoting maximum transparency in financial markets. Transparency means that it is incumbent on each financial intermediary to conduct its own assessment and disclose the underlying methodologies. If there are no minimum thresholds, financial intermediaries can disclose under whichever article they consider best fits their product. This is a critical aspect for supervisors. Several market supervisors have listed SFDR as one of their top priorities for 2023. Furthermore, we expect that the implementing measures that came into effect on 1 January will significantly increase the industry’s auto—correction and help facilitate supervision. These new implementing measures specify the exact content, methodology and presentation of the information to be disclosed by product manufacturers and distributors. As a result, it will become increasingly difficult for financial intermediaries to make unfunded green claims or to hide that they invest in potentially harmful activities. On question two, on the need for further regulatory action, we need to take stock of how the SFDR is working two years after it came into force. The implementing measures alone won’t fix all the issues arising from its unintended use by the market. That is why Commissioner McGuinness announced at the last ECON/ENVI Joint Committee in December to launch a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the SFDR in 2023. At this stage, two main options could be explored. Accepting the current use by the market of the SFDR as a labelling mechanism: this would require more precise definitions to ensure that the boundary scope of the Light Green Article 8 and the Dark Green Article 9 categories is clear. Or alternatively, keeping the SFDR focused only on disclosure with uniform requirements for all sustainable financial products and adding a voluntary labelling regime in parallel to allow for the categorisation of sustainable financial products. There will be stakeholder consultation throughout this entire process and Parliament will of course be consulted. On the third question, on the minimum criteria for Articles 8 and 9, the introduction of minimum criteria for the so-called Light Green and Dark Green Funds is one of the options that we would aim to assess. It should be noted, however, that setting up such minimum criteria involves opening and launching negotiations on the main text of the Regulation. The current rules do not foresee such a mechanism. So, this being said, I want to thank you for this question and the possibility of this debate on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner McGuinness, and I’m looking forward to the comments of other honourable Members.

– Mr President, dear Members, this was a very interesting debate. It was a pleasure for me to listen to the points you made. I think it is also a very useful discussion. Of course, I will take your comments and convey them to Commissioner Urpilainen as it’s her file. But nevertheless I want to comment on some of the things which were said here. I understood that many of you are worried about the ability of the project to deliver on the SDGs, and especially the eradication of poverty. But indeed, I think if the Global Gateway will build infrastructure, which is essential for the development of economies, if it will create jobs, then of course if we look, for example, at many projects which are aimed at building up sustainable agriculture and food chains like the one on agricultural value chains in Africa, I think all these are proof of the fact that Global Gateway supports all the SDGs, and this is its main focus. Many have raised the issue of having or not clear priorities. The Global Gateway was launched in 2021. Of course, results take time, but with the flagships for 2023 I think you will find this will show significant progress. The Commission proposal for flagship projects for 2023 will be sent to the Council in the following days and then will arrive to you in the European Parliament. This brings us to the political steer of projects, because once those projects sent to the Council and Parliament, then you will be able to contribute with your knowledge and to steer the Commission proposal for flagships for 2023, and this is going to happen rather soon. I would like also to highlight and emphasise some of the points that were made. I need to underline that the need for stronger cooperation and collaboration between all relevant European actors is absolutely essential. Since 2020, when the COVID crisis first catalysed a steep change in the Team Europe approach, we have made good progress in bringing core European players together for greater synergy and impact, and the European Parliament is an important part of that and we need to maintain – as was asked here today – a constructive dialogue, and we need to continue this positive trend in 2023. A business advisory group is being established as we speak. Civil society dialogue is ongoing through the Policy Forum for Development, we organise the European Development Days focused on global gateways and we intend to organise a similar event in 2023. Second, we must continue to reach out, listen to and engage with the private sector as they are a key engine for Global Gateway’s ultimate success. It was asked here, and we discussed about leveraging the fund or else we won’t have enough for all the needs and the impact we intend to have. Third, we need to continue to communicate the message tirelessly to our partner countries that Global Gateway offers high quality, sustainable investment that will support their own plans and objectives for recovery and sustainable growth following the crisis of recent years. So we look forward to working together with the European Parliament on all these issues in order for Global Gateway to deliver positive change across the world. Dear President, dear Members, thank you once again for your interest and cooperation on this very important issue.