Jens GIESEKE

Policy topics Jens GIESEKE is active on

What Jens GIESEKE has said (34)

• 2024-09-19 “E-001770/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission Challenges in the EU automotive industry stem from shifting mobility patterns and consumer preferences, overcapacity, increased global competition and regulatory changes around the world. At this point, it is not possible to isolate the impact of the European regulatory framework on jobs. The revision of the Regulation on CO 2 emission performance standards for newly registered passenger cars and vans 1 established a 100% emission reduction target from 2035 onwards 2 . This sets a clear framework creating certainty for manufacturers and investors, with sufficient lead time to prepare a fair transition. Building on a progress report to be published in 2025 3 , including the impact on jobs, the Commission is to review 4 , in 2026, the effectiveness of the Regulation, taking into account notably the importance of an economically viable and socially fair transition. As highlighted in the political guidelines of the President of the Commission 5 , a technologyneutral approach will be required to reach the 2035 climate neutrality target, in which e-fuels have a role to play through a targeted amendment of the Regulation as part of the foreseen review. The EU automotive industry employs over 10% of the manufacturing workforce. The Commission will work on an automotive competitiveness action plan to support it. In addition, the Commission will develop a quality jobs roadmap to ensure a fair transition for all workers, building on the EU’s Just Transition policy framework, notably the Council Recommendation on ensuring a fair transition towards climate neutrality 6 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 setting CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and for new light commercial vehicles, consolidated version available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02019R0631-20240101; 2023 amendment available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/851/oj 2 The Impact Assessment accompanying the Regulation estimates a small overall increase in employment in EU27, with positive impacts in sectors supplying to the automotive sector and the power sector, and small negative impacts in the automotive sector. 3 Article 14a (f) of the Regulation. 4 Article 15 of the Regulation. 5 POLITICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE NEXT EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2024−2029, available at https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32022H0627%2804%29”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much. So, it's all about price transparency. So I wonder what this study costs the European taxpayer. This will be my first question, and I hope I get an answer. To be quite honest, we have limited options really to do something on the market, our tools, our legislation. We can have a revision of the AFIA earlier. That would be one option, that we can of course, we can, the commission, make move there. What would be your top priorities for us in this revision if it goes to enforcement complaints you mentioned? So what should we do if we have the revision earlier? What is your recommendation to us? And then there was a quite interesting last slide, and this is, you catch my attention at least. Driver without home charging face higher costs. Is this fair? You know, these people, they invest. And I'm one of those investors, and I have a solar on my rooftop. And, of course, I have a better price, and this might bring me to the solution to buy an electric car, which all the guys in this house want. So, really, this is a way forward. But now you say this is not fair. So if you come with a solution in a way, I have to share the lower price with others, then I will abstain and not go in the electrification. So I want your smart solution on that one, please. Thank you.”
  EV charging infrastructure
• “President Commissioner. Colleagues. Well with the Connecting Europe facility cef we have an instrument that focuses on infrastructure. But now we're talking about the new competitiveness fund. But I think that's the wrong approach. Every new instrument will dilute the focus of the CEF and also produce more conditionalities, which produces more red state red tape. Excuse me? The CEF works very well. Instead of talking about getting rid of it or having new funds, we should be talking about boosting it. It's between 5 and 7 times oversubscribed and it has a massive effect. Mario Draghi talked about the deficit in terms of investment as being up to €900 million on an annual basis. If we want our infrastructure to work properly, we have to be prepared to spend money. And yes, we also want to invest in defence, but they're not mutually exclusive. I mean, there's a lot of overlap there. What about military mobility? I mean, any military mobility infrastructure will be used for civilian purposes as well. So and also military investments are investments in our security. If a tank can roll over a road, well, the road has to be appropriate for trucks to drive along as well. So I don't think defence and infrastructure are mutually exclusive. As I say, we need to think of both. And we also need to boost the resources available to the CEF. This idea of reducing the resources available under the CEF by 80% is the wrong way to go. We need to see a restructuring in the current MFF so that there's more money for available for construction, and to ensure that there's a significant amount more available in the next MFF. Railways, waterways, roads, etc. are the lifeblood of our industry. So let's ensure that the CF has enough funding to fund all our infrastructure.”
  EU funding for transportation
• “Thank you. And thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you, Commissioner. I'll be speaking German. Will, you mentioned many important things, and I just want to focus on three of them. But I do have a request. First you talked about the strategic dialogue on the car industry. That's a very important event. We don't have a great deal of time left until the 5th of March. Many action plans are involved, but it's just two weeks and I think these action plans should actually be very contained, very clear measures. They should be worth the name. I mean, if you issue of sanctions, payments should be addressed. And uh, from the EP point of view, we should also look at the combustion engine ban, uh, CO2 fleet limits, etc., that all these things should be looked at again. We shouldn't leave them till 2026. And then, uh, moving on, the situation in Europe has changed significantly. I mean, it became particularly clear since the Munich Security Conference that America has the U.S. has a different position. We're going to have to take more Take more responsibility. And, uh, this brings me to military mobility. That's a very important issue. And we need appropriate funding. So I would suggest to you that perhaps you need to look at this in the negotiations for the MFF.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “(17:28:36 – 17:30:30): Thank you very much, chair. And, on behalf of mister Jimenez Larras, I would first like to apologize for his absence today as he has commitments in Spain and could not be with us today. I'm speaking on his behalf and will briefly present the position of the EPP group. And first of all, thank you to the rapporteur, Tegatoff, for the report. Let me start by saying that the EPP supports the overall objective of this proposal, improving transparency, accountability, and ensuring that EU spending delivers real results. However, this framework must remain practical, proportionate, and focused on simplification. We should not create new layers of bureaucracy in the name of simplification. In that respect, we believe the draft opinion moves too far away from what should be the core purpose of this file. On article 5, our position is clear. We do not support this provision. The DNSHA, the do not significant harm principle, has already been mentioned by the rapporteur, already exists elsewhere in EU legislation. Repeating it here adds complexity and creates uncertainty while giving too much room for future commission guidance. On article 8, we are also cautious about expanding delegated powers and relying excessively on future guidance from the commission. On Annex 1, we are concerned by the excessive level of detail. So framework should be simpler and easier to implement for member states and beneficiaries. On Annex 3, we do not support increasing the connecting your facility climate target from 70 to 80%. So CEF must remain flexible to finance strategic priorities, including military mobility. In short, we will work constructively and table amendments to bring this opinion back towards a simpler and more realistic approach. Thank you.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “My idea is to have on short haul just electric. So the efficient ultra light on regional you mentioned, is there just electric solution feasible till 2030? That would be my first question. And then there is of course if you have the production of stuff we need to produce it somewhere in Europe there are many plans, but the implementation, the realization is always a problem. So what could we do there better? We need private capital. We need the European Investment Bank. We need member states. But we have to guarantee that some production sites are in Europe. So what could we do better? And that leads me to my third question. If it comes to the long discussion on the MFF, you mentioned the numbers. Of course, 16th of July we will just have a framework, for example, for CRF for horizon 2020 2030, but without any numbers. So what we have to guarantee is the best cooperation between European money and member states money. So where is your clue there that we have the 100% performance in order to get things done. Thank you very much.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “I think it's a good thing to get a half full glass, even if it's not yet. It's being filled up. When it comes to the TNT regulation and financing, we are doing our bit e r t m s has never been a problem when it comes to the technology, it's really the implementation of it that's the problem and the governance of it. You mentioned the good guys and the bad guys when it comes to countries, not to mention any names. There's a lot of scope, a lot of headroom to do better. When you think about best practice, we need to think about how to coordinate better between ourselves. One of the points, which I think really, uh, is required is more centralization in this difficult geopolitical times. How is it going to work? It's all cross border in the end. So we've got implementation, different speeds and different countries. How are we going to get best practice set as a gold standard? The TMS is really a gold standard. And it's important therefore that we have optimization between member states when it comes to the implementation. As a German, I'm prepared to admit that Slovenia or Luxembourg are good. How we need to learn from them. How are we going to get onto the road? When is the rubber going to hit the road or the rail as it happens in this case?”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Madam president, colleagues, the crisis in the Middle East has direct consequences for Europe, for our energy prices and our security of supply. Smes industry and families are the most severely affected, and we need to take measures to respond to this. But we are extremely uncoordinated. Kerosene has to be available across Europe. Um, whether we're talking about airports in Berlin, Paris or Rome. Secondly, decarbonisation is important, but we need the technology. Electrification alone is not enough. We need sustainable. Production of energy as smart mix, not focusing on one source source. Finally, I have a request. We have to speak with one voice, the energy commissioner says. We have a big problem. The transport commissioner says, nope, no problem here. We can only solve this crisis together if we speak with one voice. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Yes, thank you, chair. And thank you, Commissioner, for being with us. So I get the additional 2.5 minutes from you. Uh, another five and a half. No, you were very right in saying that, uh, the infrastructure is about money, and then we need the appropriate funding. So your point on the CF facility is really key. The doubling of the money in the draft is the first big success. But of course, we have to work together and to safeguard this success. You know, about the controversies and the disputes. There's a lot of pressure on the budget, not just from transport but from other sectors as well. So let's work together. But from the transport committee, you have full support on the CF funding. Um, last week we had a very interesting discussion in the parliament in Strasbourg on Thursday morning. Uh, there it was in a way with Stip and the Refuel aviation. You mentioned the numbers. We have more than 200 million tonnes till 2035, which we have to produce in Europe. The demand is there, so we need clear signals. And what I missed in your plan was the priority on the book and claim system. The book and claim system would facilitate the things and we could guarantee a faster progress. So if we take competitiveness seriously, we should work in that direction. And it goes without saying that we have to be open to correct mistakes from legislation. If it comes to quotas, those quotas have to apply.”
  EU funding for transportation
• “Yes. Thank you chair and Mr.. Mr.. Mr. Westermeyer thank you for your good presentations and your your strong message. I think the advantages are obvious of a functioning broken system. We would have more competition and we would reduce prices. That is, of course, something we should should work on. Um, Mr. Schiro, you, um pointed to the necessity to reform EU ETS and the EU aviation to have a proper functioning of the book and claim system. My, my simple question is because on this part of the table and on the other on the industry, there is a lot of support for the system, but still the commission is quite hesitant. What is your perception? What are the main arguments of the Commission not coming up with a proper proposal and to miss Pashka? First of all, congratulation! Amazing numbers. 10% already today. It's really impressive. That could not. That does not count for all airlines. So that is really. The status quo is already good but it's not satisfying. So my question would be if you have a guess in 2030 with a functioning book and claim system, where could you land in 2030 with or without a functioning system? What is the effect? If we do something right in the direction of having a functioning book and claim system? Thank you very much.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “Apply to all competitors, not just to European airlines on high speed rail. We are in favor of supporting your initiatives. But of course, from time to time I have the feeling that we talk about a vision, not about a realistic approach. We fully share your your aim to have the, for example, from Copenhagen to Berlin within seven hours. But today we need an average more than nine and a half. So we have to reduce 2.5 hours of waiting times. This means no queuing and in a way, seamless travel on rail. So we have to work a lot. Um, my final remark is, in a way, just because it's our last meeting before Christmas and it's always about expectation management. We have had this year of one year of intensive dialogue with the industry on the automotive sector, automotive industry. They were all at the table. And so our expectation was to get a little Christmas present to the 10th of October. December. What I now learn is that this might be postponed. You could imagine what happens to children who do not get their Christmas present in due time. So, uh, this is really the last chance we have. We should accelerate. So if there really is no, um, commission proposal on the automotive industry before Christmas, the commission should, uh, be very sure that they have to deliver in January. This is my plea. Thanks a lot for your time.”
  EU support of rail transport
• “Minister, good to have you here. A warm welcome to our committee. The motto, motto of the Cyprus Presidency, an autonomous union open to the world, is an excellent starting point. It leaves leaves room for it leaves lots of potential there. And, Minister, I'm delighted that you're talking about the topic of the Air Passenger Rights Directive. Of course, that poses a serious challenge for us because we have a conciliation procedure here, which isn't it doesn't happen very often in this House every ten years We've been forming our team for the negotiations. But there's one point that I would like to make quite clearly, and that is that the European Parliament here is the guarantor of passenger rights, of citizens rights, and that and we simply won't accept any watering down of the level of protection. So if we're looking to developments on the council, 60%, 60% of passengers will be losing their compensation rights. That simply won't pass muster here at the European Parliament. But we are open, we are constructive. Our rapporteur is prepared to work very closely with you. I'm a rapporteur on the Roadworthiness package as well, and I see that good progress has been made there with the council.”
  EU policy on aviation safety
• “Yes. Thank you very much, chair. And thank you, colleagues for that. Interesting Presentations. First of all, this is a very sensitive. And yes, the transport security in Baltic Sea is a very sensitive issue and this meeting is web streamed. So in a way our questions would be a bit more superficial. Next time we have such a workshop, perhaps we can have it in camera. Then we can have a more open dialogue of course. But nevertheless I have questions to the colleagues. Uh, Miss Zelinka, you started very interesting your presentation. Um, and of course, you had a good summary in your presentation. The oil sanctions do work. Uh, that's for sure. And, um, with the cap, um, and the loss of €12, you explained we are now on 70% and 50% of the whole maritime crude oil goes through the Baltic Sea. Still, 50% is a lot. So in Brussels we always work with numbers and with ambition, and we want to bring those numbers down. So if you have 1 or 2 recommendations within two years to bring this down to 40 and 30%. Uh, I would, uh, like to hear your proposal on that. Uh, Mr. Filippo's. Uh, very well on the on the, on the numbers. Very impressive. But if we are on the numbers, it is for me amazing that still we have 600 to 2500 shadow fleet. It's a bit very vague. And how can we come to a better knowledge of the enemy and precise information to say, well, these are the 2000 ships and there we have to do something. So how can we innovate, have a better knowledge of, of the enemy in, in that regard? Um, Mr.. Sadeiko, um, on jamming or spoofing? Yes.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you very much, chair. And dear Commissioner Costas. It's very good to have you here with such excellent news. Obviously. Um, to have a Saff more than 50 billion doubled. That is really good news for Transport Committee and the military mobility. More than 17 billion. That is excellent. That's perfect. But I think it's a bit too early to celebrate. Um, because if we see the full picture, we have, um, 18 I think 18 or 19 committees in the House and in other committees. The mood is totally different, and there is a lot of opposition to the overall structure. So in a way, we have to now fight together to guarantee that this success will remain there. We have to really do a lot of efforts. And this is my message to you. We have to be very careful with the control rights of the European Parliament, the budget. Budgetary control is key for us. And in a way, if you see the competitiveness fund, we do not want to have 27 national shopping lists. So if we do not solve those problems, it will be difficult for the self. So let's work together. And so I close in German faucet under Van Dyke counter. We still have to work.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much, chair. And Mr. Danielson, Minister. Welcome to our committee. Two minutes are not long. You had a good presentation, and you have the right priorities. You work in the right direction. I think competitiveness is key. And you mentioned it that it's not just the Green Deal, but we need to think that the Green Deal needs to come to a clean industrial deal where we guarantee that we have our competitiveness for our industry in Europe. We have a lot of in common. All the things you mentioned about Support Ukraine, we are on the same page. That's much appreciated, but on the files, because in this committee, obviously we will not solve the Ukrainian problem. We have a lot of technical files. And there from my perspective, missing was multi-modal passenger rights. From our point, if we come to air passengers and enforcement, the multimodal passenger should be in a package. So we should not forget about that. Then in the last week, there was a very controversial, um, publication of the 90% goal for 2040 from the commission. We will have to discuss it on the procedure and the House.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “(10:50:19 – 10:52:34): Thank you, madam chair. I'd like to thank all colleagues that have taken the floor. Thanks for being so constructive. It's a complicated issue, complicated proposals, but I think there is consensus in the center in some groups that, you know, how we secure jobs in Europe, that is gonna be the key point. So that's the motivation, I think. That's the starting point. We have that common aim. We need just to get there, get to the, target, not do away with the, climate targets, but still provide framework conditions so we can give as many jobs in Europe as possible. It's not easy. A little bit disappointed from the by the commission. They're not really looking at reality as it is. Last year, we had an industrial dialogue, the key question, plug in hybrids. That wasn't even brought up. So I think the commission needs to get more on board with the target. We need to get it over the line together. And for the c o 2 car emissions, it's already difficult there. And the premier previous debate we had with NV for the CCV CCFs, that's also part of this whole omnibus, package. So our task now is not to forget that common aim, secure jobs, not do away with our economic, environmental, goals. Looking forward to all of your amendments that I prove I presume there'd be a lot of, hopefully not too many. You know, we've had hundreds of amendments in the past, and that means our appers have a lot of work to do. So this is my final plea to colleagues. Please just focus on the most essential amendments, and that will make our life easier. Secretariat is, laughing. So let's focus on the, key points, and I'm ready for the discussions. So it's a good starting point today, and let's carry on in the same vein being constructive. Thank you. ***Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States”
  2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Now consumer protection standards in the EU are amongst the highest in the world, but there are still a few gaps. Passengers on multimodal trips have not been protected up to now, which is a disincentive. And people don't have the confidence to do these trips and there's not much on offer. Multimodal journeys are really in their infancy and we want to make them safer, simpler and more Secure, and we want to boost the rights of passengers and take better account of the needs of persons with disabilities and limited mobility. And we need clear binding rules for carriers and intermediaries. But we shouldn't overregulate either. Um, obviously it's a choice to offer multimodal trips. No one can be forced to offer multimodal connections. If we come up with very complicated rules, multimodal travel will not take off. It's about striking the right balance between level of protection and practicability or viability. And Madam Chair, you did say that 449 amendments had been tabled to the Commission proposal. So there is a need for discussion. Obviously, it's good to discuss and negotiate Parliament's position. I would like us to have clear rules that work in practice so that carriers and intermediaries are encouraged to offer multi-modal tickets, and passengers have the required trust to actually use what is on offer. There are these various ticket categories. We need proper rights of information for customers and clarification that exemptions under sectoral legislations may pertain. And we need um. Simple forms. We need to make multimodal travel simpler and more comfortable. We want to achieve a viable result so that the growing market for multimodal travel is not stifled.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Thank you. Thank you very much. So if it's just one minute, I have to focus. I will ask Miss Zhao from Airlines for Europe. Full support for for your presentation. When it comes to the one stop shop, the streamlining, the reporting obligation. If we can reduce the administrative burden in having just just one, one format that would would help. Of course, if it comes to aviation, it is always a question of is there just one point of contact as a commission? But we have agencies. We have in more than 40 agencies. But in your case we have EASA. So my take is is that an efficient way or is it in a way making things more complicated? Is it a way to reduce complexity in streamlining the procedures? Something like that. If there is potential, that would help. And my last question, this was a bit of a surprise in in your presentation because you mentioned the airport charges directive. And to be quite honest, in Germany, for example, there is an agreement between airports, airlines, air traffic controls and the entire industry not to touch this at all. So I'm a bit surprised that you now say we should go on the airport charges directive and revise it. Thank you.”
  EU policy on aviation safety
• “When it comes to the question of lights for older vehicles, things are moving in the right direction. During your presidency this we hope to conclude this file. So so as to be able to negotiate. That is something that I would like to see. I only have 30s left. And there's a very important topic I'd like to raise. And that's the car industry. This is a topic that has been on our agenda since December. The commission presented its automotive package, but I haven't heard about that. As part of your priorities, I hope that it will be part of the priorities. I know that the car industry in Cyprus is not necessarily your key focus. There are other areas that you have to focus on instead. But for many parts of Europe, the negotiation of this package is extremely important. We need progress to be made urgently. We need legal certainty and I would like to hear about the this package as being part of your priorities. Thank you very much.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen. Today fundamentally is a good day for European industry and for genuine climate protection. Finally, we're going to see becoming reality what the EPP has been asking for for a long time. A withdrawal of the 2035 ban on internal combustion engines, and a new chapter of industry moving away from a one sided Green Deal based too much on banning towards a real industrial deal that helps with competitiveness. Together with climate protection, we've produced a correction where it was necessary. The desiderata in previous years has been good, but was maybe mal placed and now we have industrial reality instead of political symbolism. Were you seeing a symbolism in this policy now? And people are starting to look at what's going on. Smart development doesn't reject any technology. So internal combustion engines, plug in hybrids, green steel is all on board. And above all, before 2035. Today, hopefully we'll finally be moving away from Frans Timmermans. Green banning policy. Europe cannot be a continent of deindustrialisation, of slowing down and stopping. We need to send a clear signal Europe is changing its course for the better. We're looking towards improving things rather than ideology. We know that people are happy to point the finger at the right at Trump, etc. this is not what we're at. Electric cars are part of the future, but the framework conditions need to be improved dramatically. But we don't need compulsory quotas for the member states. Trade unions and industry have clear expectations. They need more flexibility. Let us work together to make sure that these expectations are met, but not with a planned economy, but with a market economy. Moderation without bans, without quotas, with and nor when it comes to corporate fleets and we don't need to do it at European level.”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach · Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much to the three panelists, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Billy and Miss Matera. Quite interesting to listen to you. Um, so, Mr. Schultz, uh, I will take you for my next new campaign. Uh, you will do my slogan, strong, smart, United. So that's fine. And a bit of harmonization, simplifying and clarifying. And we have 100% of voters on our side. Um, of course, obviously it is a problem if it comes then to the real implementation we want to. There I go to Mr. Billy, we want to help you. But of course we have to see how can we do it. So in practice, um, we have a commission, um, giving mission letters to commissioners, and they say you have to deliver on 25% reduction of administrative burden. This has to have an effect of 35%. We talk about 1 in 1 out, about one and two out. So in a way is something about checks and controls and how can we measure finally the result. Um, if I was a bit, uh, critical, I would say, okay, finally, if we are not successful with this 25 or 20 or 35%, we have in, in a way reduce the number of civil servants in the commission, because if there is no civil servant, no one will draft a new regulations, and you are quite sure. But I will not. I'm not sure if this is the final solution. Um, on Europe and Miss Matera there, I think, uh, there are different opinions, of course. Um, a success story is fine. But of course, if you see the the charging stations, there is a lot of public money and you don't have a lot of subsidies. So if you count this out, if it is the same business model, that is something on permitting we can help you. But to be quite honest, uh, the the story of, um, predictability and stability. There are CEOs of big OEMs in Europe. Say if we do not change the CO2 standards, we will have no industry in ten years. This is a reality and you should recognise this as well. Thank you.”
  Digitalization of public governance & administration
• “President. Madam Commissioner. Albuquerque, ladies and gentlemen. In 2025, I had a predicted 1.2. 1 billion tons of production of fuels. We know that long term demand for fuels is enormous. Just to maintain current quotas until 2035, 20 million tons of sustainable fuels will be necessary. In other words, we've got a long road ahead of us. Commissioner estimates from the commission, from the Commissioner, which were submitted to us last week as part of the Stip plan, are an important first step. But no more or less than that. We need more investment in the sector so as to ensure that we can increase capacity in in Europe. So we have to push hard to implement this plan. Now we have to be quite honest about the reality here. Feedback from practitioners is quite clear. There is a great disappointment. Both sectors are suffering from enormous production costs. This we've seen with a pilot project in which, in my own constituency, producing sustainable aviation fuels, sustainable fuels are between 10 and 2 and ten times more expensive than fossil fuels. This is why airlines are unwilling to conclude long term contracts, and without that, nobody will invest in them. That's a classical economic problem. Moreover, regulatory risks are also a problem. There's a lack of sources, so we need a book and claim system, which means that sustainable fuels can be implemented everywhere, even if there are no local production possibilities. And this is something which is lacking in the plan. So we need greater flexibility and Pragmatism. Moreover, we should try to ensure that foreign airlines are also subject to the rules. We have to be far stricter when it comes to violations of the rules. So, Madam Albuquerque, Mr. Tsiolkovsky and the whole of the Commission, it's time for you to put forward practical proposals, in particular on book and claim. Thank you.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “(10:23:17 – 10:23:19): Yes. Thank you very much, chair. Dear madam chair, colleagues, the car industry in the EU is looking at the biggest transformation in its history. What we need to do as legislators, we need to provide for climate protection, techno technological innovation. We need to combine all of those so that Europe in the future can remain producing cars. So in my report well, I would say the commission's proposal was a good starting point, but I think we need more flexibility. Only by doing that can we, keep jobs in Europe. The reality on the market is, moving forward differently now than a couple of years ago. In lots of member states, we see, that infrastructure, construction is lagging, and we just discussed corporately previously. Cars are still too expensive for lots of people. So we see challenges when it comes to, scope range of electric vehicles. We need be pragmatic, and that's why I'm looking at techno technological liberty. Our aim is to decarbonize transports, but not to go just for 1 technology. And that means we we need to get to 90% of e EVs. And when it comes to renewable fuels, green steel, for example, all of that can be taken on board. Green steel, green aluminum, anything that could produce sustainably. Environmental friendly investment, well, that will provide, extra investment throughout the whole chain. We're also opening a framework for, cars that can be, pushable with renewable fuels. Especially, we have to look at, battery electric vehicles, so colleagues. So we have to be realistic. That's why I'm differentiating between cars and vans. Ambition for cars that's been laid down. We're also looking at transport for the economy. We're looking at the practical realities on the market. Therefore, we need even more flexible flexibility in the transition phase. We need manufacturers, to be able to produce, flexibly and, work through volatile markets, but obviously not according to question environmental standards. Hybrid technology, what about that? I think they can provide a good, transitional instrument. So but we don't need to put extra burden on them. So it comes to economic and industry policy. Look at them together. There is a clear link to the Industrial Accelerator Act. We need to be consistent. Colleagues, we want to be commonsensical, the middle way. We need look at potential, but also look at investment security, technical freedom, and competitiveness. If we want to develop cars in the future in Europe, then we have to provide the framework conditions now. Looking forward to further cooperation, and negotiations with the shadows because this report, I think, is just the start of the process. Thank you.”
  2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers · Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “Thank you very much, chair, and I will speak in German. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed to the rapporteur, miss Kuhlunen. Thank you for being so pragmatic. We appreciate that. We also like the commission's proposal, i.e., doing away with the obligation to have an SLD. It really is a huge issue in practice. This changing is good, I think, because sometimes you only have you're in the higher category because the battery is so heavy. And it's used for the same sort of vans with combustible engines. They do the same sort of work and obviously leads to extra cost and bureaucracy. It's especially SMEs that are affected by this. They're using these sorts of vans, and they do that on a daily basis. And that's why we're doing this to protect SMEs. The exemption as proposed would make them the same as similar combustion engine vehicles, and this wouldn't have any impact on safety on the road. So very much looking forward to further constructive cooperation with Shadows and Rapporteur. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Jamming. If you you you you you you stop, you lose lost your position. You lose your position. That's a problem. Uh, if you are just confused, in a way, it's not better. So. So both of those are evil. I very well understand, uh, that we need to protect clear and truthful the signal. Reception Galileo might be an option to be independent. You had this proposal with operation with, uh, with electronic fog. Um, to define the operational conditions there. I would like to know how should that be implemented? You, Mr. Berger, you referred to the complexity. Um, is it a question of national level? Uh, is it involvement of Emsa, um, um, Frontex or NATO? How can it be organized that everyone has can profit, but it's still a simple system. Uh, so the last was Professor Berger. Um, I totally share your, um, your your presentation on the effectiveness of sanctions. Um, you were you very well referred to the complexity of our European environment. I would say with member states, director general from the commission agencies, we have more than 40 agencies. And in in this very case, we have Emsa, Frontex and others. And still we haven't talked about NATO. And what you proposed was a new legal expert body. So it would additionally bring more complexity. So another legal expert body. So our aim is to keep it plain simple and to reduce bureaucracy. So in a way it's difficult to always invent a new legal body. Then we will not get rid of the bureaucracy. So I want a simple solution for that. And then I'm happy for the moment. Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “Thank you very much for taking this on board, Mr. Schmidt. Let me give you a brief update. In August 2023. The accident in the Gotthard Base Tunnel was very serious and the Swiss were very concerned. Then in 2025, there were unilateral adoption. There was a unilateral adoption with regard to the wheel diameters and the frequency of checks, and this was done without involving the EU partners. That being a problem, the European era process is still underway and the coordinated outcome was only available in January 2026, which therefore was after the implementation. So the question to the Commission is what requirements from the Land Transport Agreement have been violated, and what steps is the Commission now taking in parallel? At this point, we are talking with the Swiss Parliament on a toll for the passes that would affect foreign travellers. Now there are tolls which don't normally violate the agreement, but they violate the spirit of the agreement. And this isn't in the interest of either Switzerland or the EU. I am quite sure looking ahead. And this is something that we in March of this year saw in the bilateral agreements, the three agreements that were signed that we got better instruments, we got better and closer cooperation now with ERA. So the question is, how are we going to be quite sure that the new institutional instruments will prevent the Swiss going alone in the future? And how quickly will these new measures come into being?”
  EU support of rail transport
• “Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair and Bongiorno. Buona giornata. Welcome back to the European Parliament as you have been worked for, Mr. Costa. He is well known in this committee and made a tremendous job as former chair, like outstanding chair today as well, of course. Um, so I would like to ask, um, how we can further promote the shift from road to rail, especially if it comes to rail freight. And of course, if you speak about digitalization, um, the the elephant in the room is always artificial intelligence AI. So is there a potential to use AI in the rail sector? That will be my question. Another question on efficiency is English as a fallback language. It's always discussed. What is your personal opinion on that? And then on the technologies of course research and development is always important. But we have the existing technologies like EMTs, like you mentioned it. The problem is the deployment and the it's I know very well that you in a way, you sell your product and you speak of a success story. I could take it the other way around and say, well, it's a story of postponing and delaying and we are always too late. So what can we do to accelerate this process? Of course, one question is money. In this committee, you will convince everyone that the money for DAC is needed because it's a low hanging fruit and you will get the result immediately. So my advice to you is of course, go to the budget committee and talk to those colleagues because they have a say on the multiannual framework. Just before you, we had the discussion with the new executive Director of ERA. I would like to ask you to see potential for for further better cooperation, because the new executive director has the same take that the cooperation with member states, especially if to solve the problem of bottlenecks there, you need to work with the member States. So there is a potential of ERA and your entity to work together. Um, good luck for that because urgent progress is needed. Thank you.”
  EU support of rail transport
• “Yes, thank you very much, chair. And thank you, Mr. von Brescia, for the presentation. At least there is some progress. That's good to see. But still I have three questions. One of the main barriers cited by consumers to using public charging infrastructure remains high prices and lack of price transparency, while other already constrained provisions on transparent pricing has a commission identified persistent shortcomings in the implementation or enforcement of the rules across the market? And second, at the same time, charging infrastructure operators report growing difficulties in operating their assets on a commercially viable basis due to low utilization rates. And you pointed to that point, an issue that has been acknowledged by the Commission in its implementation assessment. How does the Commission intend to address this evident market imbalance in a way that preserves competition, avoids permanent subsidies and ensures affordable charging for consumers? And lastly there, your numbers were quite impressive on the heavy duty vehicles and to be quite open. We have always very ambitious legislation, but now we have to face the reality that we have 2000 charging infrastructure stations for the heavy duty vehicles and our goal is 20,000 till 2030. So your aim is to get another 18,000 done within, I would say five years. So there is really the question how will you manage? Will you really be ready to deliver on this goal, or do we have to find new kinds of incentivising new models of financing. So my question would be is the Commission ready to deliver with the help of the Member States, or should we postpone the aim for 20,000 stations to to a later date, for example, 2035? Thank you.”
  EV charging infrastructure
• “Madam president, Commissioner Tzitzikostas. Minister Shapka colleagues. The automotive industry is in the headlines because of the crisis. It cannot continue. So. And I'm glad the Commission has realized we need a pragmatic, balanced policy for the automotive industry. And the action plan is a first useful step towards the Commission changing direction. The clock is ticking. We need flexibility on the 2035 target. We don't need factories closing. We don't need companies being fined. The commission must put a proposal on the table at the end of the year. We need to speed up innovation. Digitalisation must play more of a role. Autonomous driving research and development is definitely something that we welcome. But although there are positive things in the action plan, it is not the answer to everything. The Commission has missed the opportunity to, uh, to be specific about its intentions regarding the ban on the internal combustion engine. The Commission needs to deliver, to deliver quickly. The EPP wants a holistic approach. Full tech neutrality by 35. Recognition of the role of plug in hybrids. We need better, better, um, charging infrastructure, especially for trucks. And the EP wants to secure the millions of jobs. We want to keep our the leading position of our industry. We don't want to kill off the industry. We want to change direction. We want to get moving. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Yes. Thank you chair. And first of all, congratulations to your election. Looking forward to good cooperation for second vice chair. We propose as EP Sophia Kirsch from Austria.”
  Recruitment policies in the EU
• “President. Commissioner. Colleagues, the European automotive industry is in crisis on a weekly basis. We hear about layoffs, about issues concerning deliveries. Already 51,000 people have been laid off in Germany. Uh, now it's absolutely necessary to provide support to the industry. And at the same time we have the issue of e autos. There's been an issue as concerns blockading of um, toll points as well with uh, trucks as well. So I think indeed the situation is very, very precarious. Um, people feel abandoned. People are in need of help. The future is not purely electric, and it is not purely combustion fuelled either. We need to be realistic. We need policies. We need a technological mix. We need to be open and transparent on this issue. The automobile industry requires support right now. Uh, of course we have to promote e mobility. We need the infrastructure. We have to improve the, uh, all that's necessary for those. But and at the same time, we need t decarbonization. However, we need good proposals. And I'm very glad that Mr. Hoekstra has spoke about has spoken about new technologies, hybrids, range extenders and so forth, and also sustainable fuels as well. Uh, if we want to have climate protection and we want to have sustainability as well, we have to deploy all technologies. But but we don't want to lose this industry in Europe either. So at the end of the year, we're going to get a Christmas present from the commission. Epp were ready to work in in this particular chamber in this House on this particular issue. Let's work together on this Concertedly. We want this for welfare, for jobs, for the future of the automobile industry in Europe, that Europe ought to remain a place of production. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “It should be the owner and not the EU that decides. Too much red tape will not bring the disappeared cars back. It will cost too much money. What we need are clear export controls to third countries. It has to be clear whether or not a car is scrap or whether it's being driven. And we need a fair market conditions not just for big companies but also for the SMEs. So no forced contracts between manufacturers and recyclers. Uh, workshops need access to vehicle data only. They can repair and replace batteries at decent prices for customers. Our compromise solution is making the commission's proposal more realistic where setting feasible recycling targets. But we're also creating fair market conditions for SMEs. We oppose further reporting obligations and we call for export requirements for scrap. That will make sure that steel and aluminium and other valuable raw materials stay in the EU. This regulation will create a circular auto industry with a plan, a planning certitude, it will mean long life is designed into vehicles. Our proposal shows that the economy and the environment can go together. It's ambitious, but it's doable. That is what we're calling for. That's why I ask you to vote on this compromise that we have negotiated. Compromises are never 100% satisfactory to everyone, but I think the proposal is a balanced one. And that's why I call on you to vote in favour of it, so that the European car industry is capable of facing the future, and so that we have a strong circular economy in Europe. Thank you.”
  Sustainability of batteries regulation
• “And welcome, Mr. Klein to our committee. Good to have you here. And you know very well that we, as EPP we support you. We support your idea. There have been forces in the House to cut down your budget by 50%. I will not name the groups now because of politeness. They are not all there. They cannot defend themselves. But it was more the left side of the house. Without naming groups. Precisely. We were 100% to your idea, and we simply believe that if we do not have innovation and sustainable aviation fuels, for example, there will be no licence to grow for aviation, it is as simple as it is. So now we have to see that with a technology neutral approach on biofuels, on electric, on hydrogen, on sustainable aviation fuels, we have to produce them here. You are very ambitious. Um, -30% greenhouse gases and 75% replacement of fleets by 2050. That is really something where we have to deliver, um, on a precise question, on the short haul, because always there is the idea from our political opponents, we have to ban something. The combustion engine that was not a success story and now it's short haul flights.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “Thank you. President. Vice president. Dear colleagues, we are facing tremendous challenges in the European car industry. We are all aware of this. Millions of jobs are hanging in the balance. There is a strategic dialogue for the car industry ongoing. Now we have this compass. Is this enough? Certainly not. We need deeds rather than words. Companies want clear decisions and rapid results. I expect something clear. No more red tape, but tangible solutions within 100 days. By summer at the latest, the time for dithering has gone. We need specific proposals to support the industry in these difficult times, in order to shore up the sector for the future and ensure jobs are kept in the car industry. The people want realistic goals and no more, no more investment in technology. There needs to need to be clear and swift approval procedures. This issue is not being addressed in the strategic Compass, and is not in the Commission's work programme. That there's an action plan forthcoming on the 5th of March Commission. Please make sure that this programme is actually converted into specific actions and measures. No more dithering.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU