Committee on Transport and Tourism Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
TRAN European Parliament
Follow its sittingsElissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Have you all voted? We close the vote. Okay. It's adopted. 28 plus, 6 minus, and 1 obstruction or zero.
Okay? So now we vote today on the opinion to batch the interim report on the proposal laying down the multi-annual financial framework for the years 2028 to 2034. Our reporter is Mrs. Quilonen from the left. We have one compromise amendment covering the whole text. Who is in favor?
Who is against it? Abstentions. It is adopted. Now, we go to the final vote. I open the vote.
We close the vote. It is adopted. 35 in favor. Only seven against and zero abstentions. Congratulations, Missus Kilanen.
Okay. If you want to leave the room, please do so quietly and quickly, so we can proceed. Please, colleagues, make it quick. Thank you very much. Now, colleagues, let's move on to the next point of today's agenda, which is our annual follow-up of the implementation of the regulation on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, the AFIR.
The commission has prepared a short note on the subject, which was shared with you last week. I welcome Mr. Fong Bresca, director of Digimove, who will make a presentation on the state of play of implementation. After his presentation, I will give the floor to our coordinators for 3 minutes each, and then to any member who wishes to take the floor for 1 minute. Finally, I will pass the floor again to Mr. Fombresca to answer members' questions. So, without any further ado, Mister Bresca, you have the floor for 10 minutes.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 7
Thank you, President. Good afternoon, and thank you very much for inviting me. I was already here last year, where I gave you an update on the implementation of our alternative fuels infrastructure regulation and highlighted a number of issues which are still valid today. So, the situation has not significantly changed. First of all, this is my first message to you. Users of electric vehicles or cars are facing an increasingly better situation regarding recharging services.
Second point, however, is that for a number of issues, for example, when we look at the segment of trucks, we also see obstacles. Therefore, we believe that we need to continue to support market development concerning recharging and refueling infrastructure. Maybe as a quick reminder, we can go to the next slide, and I will not take you through all these articles, just to say that the regulation sets binding targets for the deployment of recharging infrastructure for cars, vans, and trucks. But these are minimum targets because we obviously rely, first and foremost, on the market to deliver the necessary recharging infrastructure. But in any case, this means that the recharging infrastructure grows in line with vehicle uptake.
So, the more electric cars, vans, and so on are registered in the EU, the higher our recharging infrastructure targets will be. There's also a second target, which is important because we have a trans-European transport network also for roads. And obviously, here we also have distance targets to ensure safe journeys across Europe on European highways, so that when you use alternative fuels or batteries, there are no concerns in terms of circulation. And so, basically, today I just wanted to tell you what has happened over the last year, what we are doing as we speak, and also what we will do in the future. Next slide, please.
Again, there is no need to dwell on the details of this table. Just what I want to leave with you are two encouraging messages. The first one is that the uptake of electric vehicles is significantly higher in 2025 than it was in 2024. The share of new registrations right now across the EU is 17% and growing. And when you look, and this is column number two, you also see that the number of recharging points in the EU has increased very quickly from 300,000 in 2021 to now more than 1,000,000 in 2025.
And this also goes along with higher power outputs. Why is this important? It is important because it obviously means that you can charge not only one but several vehicles at the same time. And so, you also see on the right side of this table that the aggregated power output has significantly increased over the last few years. Next slide.
Again, I need to go through the different figures. Just to tell you that, as we speak, all member states except Malta and Ireland have exceeded their fleet-based targets for light-duty vehicles, some by more than 100%, and you see this also indicated in the degree of overachievement of 164% as an EU average. So this means that, in principle, we have good coverage, but it also means, unfortunately, that we have rather low utilization rates. And this is obviously a challenge for recharging operators because some of the infrastructure cannot be operated in a profitable way at present. Maybe then just one word for our 10T distance targets, which I mentioned before.
Again, the picture is quite positive, in particular in Western Europe, where most of the electric vehicles are registered. We now have sufficient minimum coverage achieved. And obviously, we are working right now so that this rollout also accelerates across other parts of Europe. Now, the last point here: HDV or trucks. I already mentioned that this is a bit of a challenge as we speak.
First of all, as you know, there are not many electric trucks on our highways, and many of the recharging points that exist are not necessarily suitable for trucks and their trailers. So, this is an issue which we are looking at because it obviously requires proper planning in terms of electricity grid availability, space availability, and power output so that we help develop this market for trucks. And you see that quite a number of recharging points must still be installed to reach our 2,030 targets. Next slide. And this brings me back to the issue of trucks.
We have launched, in fact, a clean transport corridor initiative where we have signed with 9 member states along 2 corridors. One is from the Mediterranean up to the Scandinavian, and the other is from the North Sea to the Baltic Sea, where we have signed, together with nine member states along these corridors, joint declarations and are now working on roadmaps to ensure that we have zero-emission freight corridors by 2030 in place. And so, we are currently mapping the existing and planned recharging infrastructure projects along these two Tenti corridors. And in this context, again, we are trying to address problems of access to electricity grids, permitting, and so on. Next slide, please.
And I'm almost at the end. This year, for the end of the year, we have foreseen a review of our alternative fuels infrastructure regulations. Indeed, we have now launched work on the accompanying impact assessment. What we are going to look at here are, first of all, the targets, the minimum targets which we have set for cars and vans, and also for HDV, so for trucks. We are also looking beyond road transport at issues of shipping and aviation.
So basically, the electrification and onshore power supply of ports and airports, and where we are on that front. And then there are two issues, which I guess are also important for this house. The first one is linked to price transparency because we have obviously heard that there are a number of complaints about the lack of price transparency in terms of the costs of recharging. So, this is one more thing that we are looking at. And then, two more things.
The first one is interoperability. This is about ensuring, for example, that we can have smart and bidirectional charging. So you know where the car is, or the battery of the car is, is in fact connected to the grid, which obviously should help with grid stability on the one hand, but also help to reduce prices of car ownership for electric vehicles. And last but not least, we are also looking at administrative simplification measures. To sum up, and these are really my last two sentences: positive developments overall in terms of recharging infrastructure deployment, but there is still a lot to be done.
I mean, in our estimates, we still need to double the number of recharging points over the next five years, assuming the continuation of the increase in electric and hydrogen vehicles, in particular. As I mentioned before, there are a number of issues we need to address, in particular the truck segment and the question of power supply, specifically access to electricity grids, because this is an important precondition for recharging infrastructure. And I stop here, and I thank you for your attention.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Bresca. And now, we start our discussion. Mister Gieseke, for 3 minutes, please.
Jens Gieseke
Yes. Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Von Bresca, for the presentation. At least there is some progress; that's good to see. But still, I have 3 questions.
One of the main barriers cited by consumers to using public charging infrastructure remains high prices and a lack of price transparency. While Afya already constrained provisions on transparent pricing, has the commission identified persistent shortcomings in the implementation or enforcement of the rules across the market? 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 issue, which 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, your numbers were quite impressive on the heavy-duty vehicles.
And to be quite open, we have always had very ambitious legislation, but now we have to face the reality that we have 2,000 charging infrastructure stations for heavy-duty vehicles. And our goal is 20,000 by 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 incentives and 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 a later date, for example, 2035? Thank you.
Vivien Costanzo
Thank you very much. I would like to speak German. I
I was very pleased to hear your presentation and all of your numbers, which all sound very good. Mr. Gieseker himself has just mentioned some of the most critical points. And here, I'd like to start with passenger vehicles. We've got certain countries that have very good infrastructure, like Belgium and Germany, but have quite poor distribution. And we know there are certain places on the edges of the EU where there isn't a lot of infrastructure.
And so, how are we planning to resolve that? And then, my second point is on prices. Now, for consumers, when they're looking at whether they have a conventional fuel or an alternative fuel vehicle, they're always looking at the numbers. And so I was wondering how you plan on making this more user-friendly, particularly the access to the numbers, working out where everything is, and helping consumers. Also, regarding the extension of the infrastructure, we heard the targets that you have.
How are you planning on actually achieving these objectives, rather than just postponing them and pushing them down the road, specifically for certain member states? And then, on enforcement, do you think we are doing enough to ensure that we will actually have enough HGV charging infrastructure in the future? Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Is somebody from the Patriots? No. Mr. Zile is not here. So, Mr. Edkin, you have the floor, sir.
Okay.
Who is this?
Thank you.
Carlo Ciccioli
Well, in recent years, we've certainly seen a massive increase in electric vehicle use, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the regulation here is an ideological thing that was created by the Green Deal, moving towards electrification and the total electrification of the automotive industry. Today, however, what we're seeing is a real change in the way people are looking at this. We've moved away from an environmental dream more towards a kind of industrial reality, particularly bearing in mind the difficulties that the industry is facing and the difficulties of our own economic structures. Here, we've also got, of course, the freedom of choice for consumers, which is incredibly important. I think we're clear.
The choice for electric vehicles isn't always incentivized as it should be. Often, it is imposed by legislation, excluding all other options. We believe it would be more sensible for us to set strict environmental targets and to leave consumers the choice to select the best technology for them. We've seen this in the past in Italy, for example, between 1990 and 2000. We saw a lot of talk about methane.
The increase was quite considerable because it was economically convenient and because consumers wanted it, rather than because it was imposed upon them. I think this is a very good example of where the market can guide people to make good choices. The topic of environmental neutrality, which has been discussed in the ECR, has, from the very beginning of the negotiations, been set aside. I think we risk standing in the way of other kinds of biofuels and options which could reduce emissions quite considerably. I think these are solutions that do not require brand new infrastructure to be created because, actually, previous investment has already been pumped into this.
We've also got to bear in mind that we are not going to be able to achieve many of our objectives by 2030, and we have to take into account the geopolitical realities as well. We know we've already missed the boat on this a little bit. We know that China has a massive competitive advantage when we're talking about battery tech and primary materials. In the meantime, it seems that the EU is really putting its automotive industry at risk. We risk it dying overnight.
We're always talking about European competitiveness and the energy costs, which we need to decrease so that we don't lose companies. We're talking about pressure on the internal market, about the cost to people's lives of these emissions. And I think it's incredibly important for us to look at what the technology can do for us here. It is a geopolitical necessity for all of us. We need to ensure that we have free choice for our consumers, and our strategic advantage needs to be taken into account here.
We need to ensure that we use the existing networks that we have in relation to fuel in Europe. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Jan-Christoph Oetjen
I would like to say, as well to colleague Ciccioli, that we all agree that free choice is the best way to proceed. Right? And I have always supported technological neutrality, of course. But having free choice also means being able to charge a car. This is part of the free choice of the people.
So I think that it's contrary to a technologically neutral approach to have targets for electrical charging infrastructure for the member states, so that people can actually have a choice to choose the mode of transport and the type of powertrain they want. In that sense, I'm interested in hearing from Mister Peska. The numbers are indeed, as colleague Constanzo mentioned, different in the member states. And we see that actually in some member states, it is going quite rapidly. In others, it's not going so fast.
My question to the commission is whether they are in discussions with the member states that are, let's say, lagging behind a little bit on how to have a quicker implementation of the AFIA goals, which are a baseline. Let's remember this, colleagues. The AFIA goals are not, per definition, the non plus ultra that we need to achieve. This is a baseline that is set, and we want the marketplace to play its role in order to get the infrastructure in place, and not only by the decision of politicians, because we, as politicians, have set a standard and a framework. But we obviously don't know where the best spots are or where to put charging infrastructure.
This shall be done by the companies. And lastly, on price transparency, I would encourage Mr. Baeska and Commission as well will look into the solutions that are already on the market because there are big companies. One is French, and one is German. There are some other smaller players that are organizing access to charging infrastructure, where you can compare prices.
So this is something where I do not necessarily see that we need European regulation on price transparency. If there's a lack of transparency, obviously, we need one. But maybe we should also use existing tools that are already on the market. And I would like to ask the Commission in which sense they take this into account. Thank you.
Kai Tegethoff
Yes. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Von Bresker, for the presentation. Let me begin by acknowledging that Afya is delivering results. Since 2021, we have seen the number of battery electric cars and vans increase from around 2,200,000 to more than 7,600,000.
Over the same period, public recharging points have grown from roughly 300,000 to over 1,000,000. And the total power output is also well above the minimum required under the fleet-based target. So, it shows that when the EU sets clear and binding targets, investment follows, and regulatory certainty works. So, we now have the foundations of a European charging backbone. The next step is to ensure that demand keeps pace with supply.
And thank you, Mister von Questka, for hinting at just this aspect in your presentation. If vehicle uptake slows while infrastructure continues to expand in corporate fleets, which account for around two-thirds of new vehicle registrations, as we know, we risk underused assets and weaker market confidence. Well, we follow that supply and demand must evolve together. Related to this, I have two questions. First, does the commission consider the current pace of vehicle uptake sufficient to ensure sustainable utilization of the infrastructure being deployed, or does it see stronger electrification of corporate fleets as a needed part of the solution? And second, this is a little bit in, yeah.
Also addressing the pricing aspect. Yeah. We know the upcoming half-year review will focus on user aspects and fair pricing, yet many drivers still face very high public charging prices and also insufficient precharge information. There are also concerns about competition between mobility service providers and vertically integrated charge point operators. How will the commission address these issues? And is it prepared to consider stronger provisions to ensure transparent and non-discriminatory pricing?
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Snorubusch.
Speaker 18
Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks for the information. From our point of view, it is still problematic that what should be a market-driven development of new types of vehicles is being imposed by law. Thereby politicized and financed by taxpayers, and forced on citizens and businesses even though demand remains limited.
Speaker 19
Electricity is expensive. The pricing is transparent. And in many countries, for example in Germany, it is unreliable. Since the tenure of the former Green Minister of Economic Affairs, there has been a directive that, in the event of insufficient electricity production, charging stations should be among the first to be taken offline to prevent possible brownouts or power outages. That sends a clear signal of uncertainty to consumers.
Speaker 18
What is now being mandated again is something that has already failed in Germany: the forced expansion of charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, which the market is unwilling to provide because the demand for vehicles remains limited and the stations are not economically viable. Instead, it is important to maintain technological neutrality for all types of propulsion so that those systems prevail which are truly financially viable and without any subsidies. Electric trucks are especially problematic for small and medium enterprises. We have no questions. That is just our statement.
Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Now I'll give the floor to Mr. von Breszka for his reply, and then we will open the discussion for MEPs who want to take the floor for one minute. Mister Breszka, thank you.
Speaker 7
Thank you. A number of you were referring to questions of price transparency, whether prices are too high, and whether there are price abuses going on. So I will take them all together and answer as follows. For the time being, we do not have any clear indications that there are price abuses. It is true that what we see are, on the one hand, high deployment costs of recharging infrastructure.
We also see, in some places, high taxation or high taxes, and high electricity network costs. And if you take this altogether, then this probably will explain, at least to some extent, the fact that prices vary significantly from one place to another. We will look into this more closely during the review of Afir. So, this is one of the topics that we clearly have on our agenda. We would obviously want to ensure strong monitoring of the market, on the one hand by the commission, but also through the competent national authorities, so that this is taken care of.
So, no price abuses. But we obviously are not in favor of any form of price regulation because we believe that this would be counterproductive, as it will, in all likelihood, have negative impacts on investments in that area. Maybe just coming back to the beginning and the intervention of Mr. Giesige. Yes, I mean, some of the targets we have are quite ambitious.
But if you put them in context, you referred to the 18,000 recharging infrastructure points that are required by 2030. I mean, when you look at the wider deployment, we are speaking about more than 100,000 recharging points each year in Europe, which are added to the existing recharging points. So, if you put it in perspective, we still believe it is feasible. Having said that, we obviously see that, for certain segments, and I mentioned the truck segment before, we are in close discussion not only with member states but also with investors, thinking in particular about banks to ensure that the necessary financial support can be granted. You know that we also have a financial instrument, the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Facility.
And our plan is, in the years to come, to focus in particular on those segments where we still see the need for intervention, also from the EU side. Maybe just one more thing, because this has also been mentioned in this context: the low utilization rates. And here, indeed, what we have seen is that probably a lot.
Speaker 7
Operators expected, over the last years, a bigger uptake of electric vehicles. And probably in the past, this was not as significant as some of the operators had assumed. This has certainly also led to these low utilization rates. But again, we hope now that the uptake will follow. What we have seen, in particular over the last year, is indeed a very positive development in the market for electric vehicles.
And, as you know, the Commission has also put forward some initiatives. I'm thinking, indeed, as it was mentioned, the proposal on corporate fleets, which would hopefully also support the rollout and deployment of zero- and low-emission cars.
And vans.
Speaker 7
Maybe then, just as a second issue, because this, I think, is also mentioned by some of you: the question of the geographical distribution of the recharging network across Europe. Here are two figures. The first one is that more than 50% of all recharging points are located in three countries: France, Germany, and the Netherlands. But it's also true that in these countries, more than 60% of all electric vehicles are registered. So, in a sense, the recharging follows the deployment of electric cars, but it is indeed true that we need to support, in particular, the rollout in other countries as well, while at the same time acknowledging that we do not have an EU-wide methodology for how we could, in particular at the subnational level, define what the targets are.
But one of the areas which we will certainly look at is rural areas because we know that, in particular, in cities and along highways, there are few problems. But in rural areas, there are. So again, against this background, we will focus, in the context of the half-year revision, also on these questions. And then, maybe, my last two points. First of all, I mean, leave the decision to consumers and the industry.
I mean, I don't have to remind you that we had just proposed a revision of the CO2 standards for cars and vans, and there, we have provided more flexibility and a technologically neutral approach. So, I don't think I need to dwell on this because you are perfectly aware of it. But, again, what we will do going forward is still keep the line and focus on the decarbonization, also on road transport. And this, obviously, is also one of the issues here: the question of fair pricing. Fair pricing, as I mentioned before, will also be looked at in the context of the AFIA review.
Thank you very much.
And.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Now, our colleagues will speak for one minute each. We start with Mr. Laraz, please. Mister Jimenez Laraz. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Borja Giménez Larraz
If we want alternative fuels to have a future, then what we are talking about today is absolutely essential. Without recharging infrastructure, we'll never make these alternative fuels attractive, and the freedom of choice of fuels will never become a reality. I have two questions related to this. Now it's important that we focus our efforts on the basic 10T network, but it's also important that we ensure a balanced deployment across our territory. You know, this has already been discussed.
But my question is, is the commission considering taking specific steps to help develop this in rural areas? And my second question: we know that there are some member states where there is a bit of a delay in the development of these infrastructures. In my country, for instance Spain, there are no real signs of a national plan for deployment such as required here. So, my question is: what sort of monitoring or instruments can the commission implement here in order to show that this is met? Thank you.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
You, chair. NASA rapporteur on the review of weights and measures. Let me just say that the review in 2026 will be absolutely decisive because if we want to introduce zero-emission lorries, then we need to ensure that we have the necessary infrastructure in place to help this in terms of scale, power, and coverage. Now, a number of these points have already been addressed by the commission representative's presentation, but I have a couple of additional questions for him. First, what about increasing the recharging stations for HDVs?
Second, what about the fact that it's not just a question of how many charging stations we have, but also what the network capacity is overall, including the megawatt amounts? What will the Commission do about that? And finally, what financial instruments will be used in order to support this more ambitious goal? Now there's Afyaat, of course, but there's also the Competitiveness Fund, where there could be synergies found, or also the Clean Corridors initiative. How will all of these different pieces of the puzzle fit together?
Thank you.
Danielson?
Johan Danielsson
Okay. Most of the questions have been asked or answered already, but my initial question was about the issue of rural areas because there are differences between countries, but also within countries. So, what could the commission theoretically do to also help with deployment in rural areas? Then on the HDVs, okay, you say it's feasible to go from these 2,000 to 20,000. How much discharging do you foresee in these prioritized corridors?
And what about the rest of the network for heavy-duty vehicles? And will these 20,000 charging points then be possible to use for the trucks and the trailers? And in the beginning, you said that one target was about safe and secure parking and overnight charging. How does the statistical outlook look for the availability of safe parking places and overnight charging? And then, there was also a point in the presentation about the possibility of extending the regulation to ports and airports.
Could you perhaps elaborate a little bit on the thinking in the commission?
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Does any other colleague want to take the floor? No? So, Mr. Von Bresca, the last floor is yours.
Speaker 7
Thank you very much, Chair. On the question of the geographical balance, let's call it at the subnational level, rural areas have been mentioned. I think there are two issues here. The first one is subsidiarity, and member states are always very protective in terms of the Commission prescribing the concrete coverage of recharging infrastructure on their territory. So again, for the 10T network, which are the major highways across Europe, we do have these targets.
But again, this is not what we are talking about here: rural areas. And here, there is indeed, at this point in time, no methodology which would basically ensure a coherent approach across rural areas in Europe. But again, this is an issue which we are looking at in the context of the review of AFIER. So if you have specific suggestions or ideas, we are obviously happy to listen to them. So, I think that is my first reply.
On HDVs, yes, you're perfectly right that besides space and safe parking, one of the issues is the availability of electricity grids because here, we are usually speaking about megawatt charges, so we need much more power for trucks. And here, in fact, we are, on the one hand, working, and you have mentioned this, together with member states on this clean transport corridor initiative, which we also want to roll out across other TEN-T corridors. But we are, in particular, also discussing with our colleagues of DG Energy and, at the national level, with the so-called distribution operators. So we're in charge of providing access to grids to, first of all, better understand what the planning is at national and regional levels in terms of rolling out additional electricity capacity and grids, and then obviously also to see whether we can prioritize these HDV recharging points in terms of getting early permissions and access to these grids, because this is obviously right now one of the main bottlenecks. So, we are basically trying to bring together colleagues who are in charge of energy distribution with those who are in charge of mobility and transport to address this problem.
And last but not least, on ports and airports. Here, the situation, I would say, is as follows: we see that for the major airports and ports, the situation in terms of electrification, onshore power supply, and the possibility to charge aircraft looks very good. But once we go to the smaller ports along the European coastlines and shores, the situation is still not satisfactory. So this will, again, be one of the priorities for us in terms of supporting also financially these places, so these ports and airports to be equipped, on the one hand, with electrification, but maybe also with hydrogen depending on the type of fuel which is chosen. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Thank you. So, now let's move on to the next item on our agenda. It's the air transport agreement and ancillary agreement on the application of the air transport agreement between the United States of America, the EU and its member states, Iceland, and Norway. In order to conclude these agreements, the Council has now requested the European Parliament's consent.
Our report, Danielson, will present the draft. I would like to remind you, dear colleagues, that the deadline for tabling amendments has been set for 26 February at 12. Mister Danielson, please, you have the floor for 3 minutes.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you, Cher. As you know, the agreement we have on our table reflects the reality of today's transatlantic aviation market. This is one of the most important and dynamic air transport relationships in the world. From my perspective, the agreement delivers on three things that are important for the TRAN Committee of the European Parliament. First, it provides legal certainty and stability.
Airlines, airports, and passengers benefit from predictable and clear rules that support long-term planning, investment, and connectivity throughout the Atlantic. Second, it safeguards European interests and competitiveness. The agreement ensures continued market access for EU carriers and a level playing field, while remaining fully consistent with EU legislation on safety, security, consumer protection, and competition. And thirdly, it also recognized the importance of sustainability and social standards. The tech strengthens cooperation on environmental issues and acknowledges the need to uphold high labor standards in the aviation sector, an issue of clear importance not only to me but also to this group and the whole parliament.
Overall, the agreement has demonstrated positive economic effects, including increased connectivity, more choice for passengers, and tangible benefits for jobs and growth in the EU. This is why I've taken a positive approach to the agreement, and I look forward to this exchange of views and any input from colleagues. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Now, we start our debate. Mister Ionski, you have the floor for 2 minutes, please. Thank you.
Dariusz Joński
Thank you very much, Madam Chair and dear colleagues. I'll be speaking on behalf of Luca Ciesca. The U.S. Air Transport Agreement has been the foundation of transatlantic cooperation in aviation for many years. It enables strong links between our markets. It supports trade, investment, and tourism.
It also strengthens the position of the European aviation sector in the global market, and the Transatlantic Corridor remains one of the most important and competitive aviation markets in the world. So, these legal frameworks ensure market openness and regulatory stability. They give airlines predictability. They give passengers a wide choice of connections, and the continued growth of traffic between the EU and the United States confirms the structural importance of the relationship. The agreement also reflects a major, balanced partnership.
The 2010 protocol introduced commitments and high labor standards. It also strengthened cooperation on environmental issues. It connects economic openness with responsibility. In a broader geopolitical context, maintaining stable transatlantic aviation cooperation has clear strategic importance for the European Union. I would like to underline that this cooperation is important for our future.
It helps our economy grow. It creates new opportunities. It brings people closer together. We should continue it too; supported, strong partnerships make us stronger. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Now, a colleague from the Patriots. Now, Mr. Slotovski, for two minutes, please.
Kosma Złotowski
Madam Chairman, the fact that the agreement will be approved is evidence that even though some don't like Trump, we need to talk to Americans, and we need to maintain relations in the spirit of business as usual. America is a very important market for our carriers and for our airlines. We should, therefore, be less emotional when it comes to the behavior of the administration. In 2024, we had more than 70 million passengers. This is the scale of the agreement.
So, I think that the next step within this agreement should be the implementation of the rules on passenger protection, especially when it comes to flights managed by carriers from outside the European Union. At this moment, the protection is available only if a flight takes off at an airport located in the European Union, and the European passenger should be protected in the same way, whether they take off from Europe using European or American airlines. Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. From the renewal? No. Then, Mister Tegidov? No?
Nobody else wants the floor? Is anyone here? So I can give now, for two minutes, from the European Commission, Mr. Stefan Echwal, policy officer. Did you move? Yes, sir. You have the floor for 2 minutes.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 34
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think I need 2 minutes. I think I can adhere to what has already been said by the distinguished parliamentarians. I think this is an agreement that we have seen in place for a long time and that has been working well. Also, the provisional application of Norway and Iceland to this agreement has worked very well.
Speaker 32
So, I think this is something that we consider good. Our relations with the U.S. S. In the field of aviation, I think, and I can also confirm that this is something that is working well. And we have a very good dialogue with the U.
Speaker 33
S. Friends on everything related to aviation under this agreement. So, with that, I have nothing to add to the opinion expressed, and we also support the draft recommendation as put forward by the rapporteur. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you. Thank you very much. And Mr. Danielson, final reply for you.
Johan Danielsson
Sorry. I am not laughing. This is a serious matter. It's something else that I blame on my colleague. I will not be very long either, just to say thank you for the supportive comments from colleagues.
And I think it will be an easy vote in the committee. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. So now we are coming to the presentation of the Commission communication on connecting Europe through high-speed rail. The high-speed rail network is a very relevant element of the TGV's system. Okay. Please, we have to interrupt the meeting for 5 minutes.
Because the commission, you could say, is coming in five minutes.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
I have to explain that the commission is coming after five minutes. So, the interruption will be within 5 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Okay. Good. I saw it and already replied to you that now we can plan as discussed, starting from. I was not put on.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Colleagues, we continue. Take your seats, please. We are naughty. So now we are coming to the presentation of the Commission communications on connecting Europe through high-speed rail. The high-speed rail network is a very relevant element of the TNT, and the communication presents a roadmap and measures to achieve the vision of a well-functioning and faster high-speed rail network by 2040.
Please note that our committee will adopt a non-legislative report on this topic. I would like to warmly welcome the commission representative, Mr. Christian Schmidt, the responsible director for land transport at Digimove, who will give us an overview of the communication. Now, Mr. Schmidt, you are here. You have the floor for 10 minutes, please. Thank you.
Kristian Schmidt
Chair, good afternoon. Thank you very much to the committee for inviting the commission. We look forward to your report. I have 10 slides, but in 10 minutes, I will go very quickly. Let me start by saying that we have a high-speed network in Europe, which sometimes is too slow and definitely needs to be reformed.
But on the next slide, I think we can present a vision for you. Can we get the next slide? Here you go. And it is very clear that by 2040, we want all European capitals and major cities linked by high speed. And we would also like to convince you that, point two, if you were to do that, you would see much shorter travel times on the main routes.
There are two examples there. Madrid and Lisbon are currently nine hours ahead; it would be three hours in Prague and Vienna, five hours now, more than half, less than half, two hours and fifteen minutes, and a bit wider in Berlin and Copenhagen, seven hours today, four hours later. Athens Safia Chair, 13 hours and 40 minutes today. By 2040, it could be cut to 6 hours, so less than half. And Budapest to Bucharest, fifteen hours today, could be six hours.
So, clearly, there is an upside to this. Point three here: affordability. As you may know, passengers are running to the stations. Last year, we had a 5.8% increase in passenger rail train kilometers. So, Europeans clearly want to take the train, but they certainly need more incentives to see a motor shift.
And then, of course, also point four of our vision: this is a European point of strength for our industry and competitiveness. And so, the plan also includes a very strong section on European excellence in the rail supply industry. Next slide, which I hope will be a very short video. Thanks a lot. And let's hopefully go back to the key deliverables.
Next slide, number 2. So, Honorable Members, nice vision, you'll say, but how do we get there? And there, I want to be very clear that it's not line by line or city by city. What we need is a holistic network approach to this. It will be affordable only.
It will be feasible. It will only be financially possible if the whole system undergoes a European upgrade. Therefore, for that, we need more than aspirational instruments. So one of the deliverables is binding milestones in the corridor implementing decisions on our TNT network. That will come in 2027, after dialogues coordinated by all the corridor coordinators.
And hopefully, this will pin down member states in terms of upgrading speeds, funding, and financing. And the second point linked to that is a financing strategy that will also come out this year. I'll come back to that in detail. It isn't just infrastructure. It's rolling stock.
It's the facilities that enable competition. And these are all the hidden barriers to interoperability. Who wants to invest billions in new train lines if the train stops at the border because ERTMS is not compatible across the border? And then, finally, it's very passenger-focused. We are building this for Europeans, and therefore, ticketing and many other things have to be included.
Next slide, please. This is an overview of the upcoming slides on the flagships. So, I will skip and go directly to the substance. So, the next slide, please, is on the network or infrastructure, if you wish. We want to see an acceleration of the rollout of all the national and cross-border infrastructure. The TNT network, and I know you saw my colleague Erik from Preska recently; he's in charge of that.
The TNT network is fine. It's a start. But if you want a truly European network that delivers those reductions of speed, then member states and we altogether have to go beyond the targets set in the TEN-T regulation. We have to meet the deadlines, but we also have to do more than that. Therefore, we need to boost investments specifically for high-speed rail.
And, of course, we have to do all that while thinking of resilience and the impact of climate change on construction and operations. So, next slide, please. The financing needs are daunting. We have calculated this to cost something like $546 billion for this higher-level ambition plan. The EUR $345,000,000,000 you see to the left of the slide is the price tag for the TNT, as already adopted by the Council and Parliament.
But if one wants a truly European high-speed network, it is more than that. You can contrast that, of course, with the CEF proposal that we have put on the table: 51,600,000,000 for seven years, so a tenth, and all of that, of course, is not for rail. But, as you can easily imagine, that means that private money has to be crowded in. Next slide. Therefore, there needs to be a financing strategy.
And that financing strategy has to be discussed with private investment banks and investors who don't normally look at rail as a profitable investment case. Why? Because there is planning uncertainty, what is the long-term vision? And what about all the risks of project delays and overruns, etc.? And how much will I actually get in revenue?
How many tickets will I sell? What is going to be the price of the tickets? All of that can be addressed by having it clearly upfront on the table. Many models are available to investors, including PPPs or what are called regulatory asset-based models. All of those will be set out and discussed with potential finance sources as part of that.
So that's the financing and the price tag, without which there is no strategy. Next slide, please. So, if you want to put in the money, you want to make sure that it's not a waste of those funds. And therefore, we need to overcome all the barriers that increase costs. One of them would like to applaud Parliament for having already tackled it.
The first point on the slide is capacity regulation to make sure that the capacity we have is already used. Your parliament and your Rabot Tertile Metz have already delivered on that. We have agreed on a final agreement. Therefore, we are now confident that if better capacity is built, it will be well used over the network. I will not go through all the bullets because of time, but just to say that you see, to the right, for instance, improved rail ticketing.
Again, here, it's passenger-centric. The commission is finalizing a proposal that will come before the summer. It will be very ambitious. And it will ensure that, whoever is the railway operator, you can find it on your smartphone, you can combine it, and you can maintain presidential rights. As the President said in her political guidelines, one click for the entire journey, and that is also part of this high-speed plan.
Then let's come to the next slide, please, which is about the industrial strategy. So, the European rail industry is currently still a global leader. It's growing by 3% per year, which is not bad. Their order books are full. And, in fact, the main problem is delivering new train sets on time.
They employ 650,000 people and are not negligent. You see the cuts in the automotive sector. If all those people could immediately switch to the wealth sector, we would not have a problem. We'd have employment in Europe, which we don't, but there are opportunities here that should be harnessed. One of the points we want to make sure of here is that our rail industry seizes the opportunity that high-speed trains and infrastructure built in Europe present, and that it is built not in a fragmented manner—one product for Germany, another for France, another for Italy—but, of course, harmonized so that we cut the cost again.
We cannot put this $345,000,000,000 or $546,000,000,000 price tag on the table and not have a plan for bringing down the unit costs. So, research and coordination for our competitiveness are all part of it. We have also announced in the plan that we'll have a dedicated research high-speed call and a special call under the Connecting Europe Facility for high speed. And then quickly to the fourth and last component, which is better governance. Next slide, please.
All of this cannot be delivered bottom-up just by the commission putting a vision on the table. For instance, the role of the European Railway Agency in ensuring that all authorized high-speed trains are suited to operate on the entire network without restrictions requires a stronger European Railway Agency. And so, we are also announcing in the plan, but you already know this, a revision of the error regulation on which our services are working, and it will come to you this year. And then the last point is monitoring and reporting the progress. We are announcing in the plan that we will set up a scoreboard so that this isn't something we present today and then return to in ten years to conclude whether we met the objectives or not. We will annually look at progress and report to both Council and Parliament based on that progress.
The baseline is how many people are going today by high speed, how many are going in the future, and all these other things. We are working on the KPIs for that, as we speak. And that last slide you see there is the timeline. I can't read it with my eyes from here. I'm sure nobody else can, maybe except young people.
But what you see there is our to-do list, and it stretches until 2028. All the details are in the plan. There is an annex with all the different objectives. But I can tell you, Chair, we will not be bored in GD Move; we will deliver on that. You have the funding strategy.
You have legislation, specific legislation on scrapping rolling stock, to ensure that new entrants can access the markets. You have the error regulation, as I mentioned. You have the dedicated call for proposals. You have the scoreboard. And so, again, I want to conclude where I started.
This is not a plan where you can pick and choose and say, "I like this part of the plan, but not that part." If we don't deliver the whole thing, we don't have a business case for mobilizing the many billions of euros necessary to achieve the reduction of travel time. So all measures, all lines, all countries, comprehensive and European, are the way that this vision would be carried out. I really look forward to your support and your report because we will need your guidance to sustain this work over the next few years. Thank you, Chair.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. We open the debate now. Mister Jonski, you have the floor first.
Dariusz Joński
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this very interesting presentation. I think, and I absolutely believe, that this high-speed railway is one of the most important projects financed by the European Union. I am in Poland because I am from Poland, and we will just start with the first line of high-speed rail, and we know how important this is. By the way, during the trial mission, we would like to show what stage we are at in Poland.
So everyone in this room knows that's very important, and we need to find the money for this very ambitious project. My question is about money and Eastern Europe. How does Digimove intend to ensure that the high-speed railway initiative equally covers Central and Eastern Europe, including my country, and does not focus primarily on existing Western Europe corridors? What concrete EU funding instruments will be available to support new connections, not only the upgrade of existing ones? Thank you very much.
Speaker 43
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I also have a question, which references what my previous colleague just asked you. My question is on territorial issues, equation, military mobility, and investment priorities in Eastern Europe. In the current geopolitical context, the European Union has set ambitious objectives regarding military mobility, including the capacity to ensure the rapid transport of military equipment along the West-East axis.
Speaker 41
For example, from Paris to Bucharest within approximately 3 days. However, these objectives clearly highlight the major infrastructure gaps that still exist in the member states of Eastern Europe. In this context, how will the Commission ensure that the high-speed rail initiative does not concentrate investments solely on already developed Western corridors, but instead prioritizes the development of transport infrastructure in Eastern member states, both from the perspective of territorial cohesion and European resilience and security? And more specifically, which financial instruments and prioritization criteria will be used to accelerate infrastructure modernization in Eastern Member States so that both civilian connectivity objectives and military mobility requirements can be realistically achieved? Also, another question: high-speed rail must never become a two-speed mobility system serving only major cities and high-income passengers.
It must function as the backbone of an integrated and inclusive European rail network that connects seamlessly with regional, commuter, low-cost, and night services. How will the high-speed rail initiative ensure that Europe's rail network serves all types of passengers and that services remain accessible and affordable? Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. The Patriots are not here, colleagues. From the sir?
From ECR.
Carlo Ciccioli
Thank you. Gracias. You
All yes. Thank you.
Yeah. Fascinating.
Because the connection between the big European cities through high-speed rail is essential for the development of Europe. And, of course, an additional network would be important for smaller cities. But there's a financial problem because I'm sure there are already the CEF and funds like these. There are other funds. There are regional funds.
But I feel that we really need a partnership with the private sector. That way, we can actually shorten the organization time. And is there any financial strategy to bring in private capital and make it profitable so that we can speed up this project?
Ana Vasconcelos
Thank you, Chair. There are big ambitions for high-speed rail across Europe. The big question is whether the EU is on track to deliver them. The commission promised a major high-speed rail deal in 2026, backed by a new EU financing strategy that was supposed to be announced at the end of last year. Can you update us on when this financing strategy will be finalized?
And how does this guarantee a generally open, competitive European rail area in place of national monopolies? A truly European rail network needs competition and innovation and must avoid subsidizing the status quo. Extreme weather events, like the devastating floods recently seen in Portugal, Spain, France, and Italy these past weeks, have exposed just how fragile our rail infrastructure can be. Disruptions cost billions in damage. The commission has promised harmonized standards for assessing climate resilience across Europe.
When do you expect these to be available? Will they be mandatory for EU-funded high-speed rail projects to ensure passengers have the same protections for all journeys across different countries? Finally, traveling by rail across Europe should be simple. Instead, passengers often face a maze of different websites with incompatible ticketing systems and no easy way to book a single journey across multiple modes of transport. The commission has promised a ticketing initiative to fix this.
When can we expect the proposal? And beyond tickets, what is being done to ensure that new rail companies can actually enter the market and compete fairly so passengers benefit from real choice and better prices? Thank you.
Vicent Marzà Ibáñez
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Firstly, I'd like to thank the Commission for this proposal and the explanation that we received in this committee. I'd like to say that, as Greens, we totally agree with the objectives of this high-speed rail plan. And we'd like to put forth three remarks to contribute to this debate and support the following actions. Firstly, according to the Commission, what they said was very important, and I think we have to have a holistic view.
It should go further than just what each individual member state is doing. We need to focus not on cutting back time from getting from A to B between the cities, but on cutting back time from door to door for the citizen in their movements. Because I think we also have to include improvements to regional trains and nearby trains, which bring people to connect with this high-speed rail so that we can be efficient and actually multiply the number of passengers. So, this would be a holistic view to facilitate connectivity not only of small cities but also with airports, bus stops, and other types of means of transport, which are the backbone of the movement of European citizens. Now, this would be a way to do away with those bottleneck situations that end up at borders.
So, the closer you get to the border, the less efficient we become. So we are really eager to receive this commission proposal to create certain obligations for European investments in infrastructure to do away with these bottlenecks and ensure better coordination at border zones so they truly have connectivity, because all we would be doing is having state-related high-speed trains. Now, as for the management model and supporting industry, it is really important for this high-speed plan to meet the needs of the industries. And we should give aid so that we can generate many other jobs. We have to harmonize the requirements.
But technical questions of manufacturing, licenses, and certificates must be considered alongside labor law and workers' rights. We have to work on this, and I'll conclude by saying that we are really enthusiastic about this proposal. We think this is necessary to improve Europeans' competitiveness, social cohesion, and reduce emissions. And also, we're ready to work with you on this. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Nordhaus? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Schmidt, thank you for this inspiring presentation, which shows the huge potential of high-speed rail. We are very much looking forward to this ambitious plan being realized in the not too distant future and will support it as a whole, not in parts.
In a time of economic crisis, rail manufacturers can provide technological innovation and new employment opportunities. And we hope that you or the commission find enough partners to finance this project. Thanks very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. And now, Mister Laraz, you have the floor, sir, for one minute, please.
Borja Giménez Larraz
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Well, when we talk about high speed, let me start by mentioning countries. Has a speed of 4,000. It's one of the largest networks, and their building was a real collective success. We're very proud of it.
But we're seeing deterioration; it's quite clear, which is not just because of a lack of technology and techniques, but because we need investment. So, we are for European investment to build a strong network. It's not just a longer network; it has to be safe, reliable, and well maintained. So I would like to know, are you going to provide a clear idea of the life cycles of the existing material? Is the Commission planning instruments to accompany Member States in structural investment?
And we'd like to know that it's not just an electoral use. Will there be a directive to guarantee the good condition of these trains? Thank you.
Ricci, please.
Matteo Ricci
Yes. Thank you, President. I will speak Italian.
Thank you very much. I wanted to understand what the financing strategy is, just like Mr. Ciccioli. Here, we shouldn't fool ourselves about the resources that we actually have available. We do have significant resources, of course, compared to the previous budget. However, here, of course, we have the military mobilization as well.
And to finance the whole high-speed project, we're going to need quite considerable funds. And there are a lot of concerns surrounding this. For the new Next Generation EU, we, I think, don't have the funds that we need to be able to carry out the high-speed initiative that we would like. I don't think that the involvement of the private sector would be enough to bridge the gap. And so, I think the question of how we're going to fund the high-speed initiative is incredibly important and is a central point that I would like to focus on.
Another point, which is more technical but still very important when it comes to intermodality. This is about ticketing. The commission is due to come out with a proposal in spring, and I was just wondering whether you had any initial or more precise information on that. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you, Mr. Ritchie. Missus Devoe, please. Thank you.
Valérie Devaux
Thank you very much, Chair. We'd like to thank you for the publication and the presentation of this plan on the high-speed rail initiative. As you've said, high-speed rail is an important factor for the development of rail in Europe, taking into account both passengers and freight. Bearing in mind the high costs associated with this, it seems we are really talking about the cherry on top of the cake. It's also about pride in our rail sector, and we have companies that are really at the forefront of this in Europe.
There are a lot of costs, of course, associated with this level of ambition. Particularly here, we're talking about €350,000,000 by 2040. Now you spoke about various ways that we can optimize the use of European funds, promoting and evolving the private sector and access to advisory services. However, I think we also have to bear in mind that the CEF 3 budget is quite considerable. And so, I think it's important for us to look at those funds in budgetary negotiations.
So, my question to you is as follows. Where is the money?
Kai Tegethoff
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt, for the presentation. First time that the Commission puts high-speed rail at the center of the EU mobility strategy. That's, of course, a very important point. And I think we should also highlight what you said: high-speed rail is not only transport or climate policy.
It is also very much about competitiveness, cohesion, industrial strength, and, last but not least, mobility rights. So, on paper, this is a good start. Now, we have to make sure this materializes on the ground. In this context, I actually have three questions. So, the second thing, which has already been asked, is about the financing.
You mentioned those up to €550,000,000,000 that we know are far beyond what CEF or national budgets can currently cover. So, you mentioned the private investment. Totally agree. But how do we see this huge gap actually being filled realistically? And then, regarding the high-speed rail deal for 2026, what can we actually expect there?
Will there be concrete financial commitments from member states and investors, or is it more of a political declaration? Then, on the ticketing, we know that for a successful cross-border high-speed rail, we need seamless ticketing. So you know my concern about the date of when we get the ticketing package. I just want to second this again. Maybe you can commit in this setting to a certain date or point in time when this package will be published. And the last question: you talked about the KPIs.
Looking forward to 2030 or 2035, which concrete, measurable improvements is the commissioner currently looking into? You mentioned the number of passengers, but there must be more. Maybe you can tell us more, something like: is it more cross-border service, shorter traveling times, simplified authorization, or certain improvements for ticketing? Thank you.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you. Firstly, on the financing from a different perspective, the commission assumes that a large part will come from private investment. So, how do you ensure that this does not lead to higher ticket prices, since one of the objectives is also affordability for the service? Then secondly, if you could perhaps, since you are here, develop a little bit on the industrial and manufacturing leadership in rail, because this is an important part of the strategy that we agree on. But for me, it's a little bit unclear how we really ensure that this contributes to European leadership.
And also, how do we ensure that the building of the actual infrastructure is done with well-paid jobs in Europe, performed on collectively agreed wages? And then, thirdly, you say this is a package everybody needs to buy in its entirety. And I mean, we really welcome this approach by the Commission. But also in this movie, it was good for my home country, for example Sweden, that the movie was moving quite fast. Because you can see that there exists no high-speed rail, not in 2030, not in 2040.
And then, all of a sudden, in 2050, it appears, because by then we need to be done. But this is not how it works in reality. So if member states don't buy into this, what tools would the Commission have to ensure that this is a real European approach? I mean, I will do my best to change our government in September, but you might have problems with other countries as well. So, thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Danielson. Now, Mister Schmidt, you have the floor, sir, to reply and answer the questions for 5 minutes. Thank you.
Kristian Schmidt
Thanks a lot. 11 speakers; I will not be able to do justice to all questions. Apologies in advance. I'll try to group them. I think a lot of questions were about the current high-speed network being a Western European thing and how we cover the totality of the continent and territorial mobility.
Those were the questions from Mr. Jonski and Mr. Monsieur. And I fully agree. And we recognize in the plan that what we have today is a fragmented high-speed network in member states.
So, there are very few, by design, cross-border high-speed links in Europe. You can take the example of France. It's the star radiating from Paris. In Spain, it's a star radiating from Madrid. And then you have a bit of high speed in Germany, in the Netherlands, in Belgium, and that's it.
If you set the definition to 250 kilometers an hour and above. Now, we, the commission in the plan, have been very clear that that's not what we are looking at. What we are looking at is a European network that covers the entire country. And how could we possibly mobilize with the council anything other than a truly European network? Not only is it the right thing to do, but also financially, it doesn't make sense.
These lines are extremely expensive. Depending on the geography, it's something like EUR 20,000,000 per kilometer, sometimes more. Unless you have a network where customers flow from one catchment area to another, you will never get the number of passengers per year that you need to justify the investment. That number is something like 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 travelers per year in order to justify constructing a high-speed line. You have that for Paris-Brussels, you have it for Paris-London, and maybe a few others, but not many, right?
So, if we are to convince private investors that this is an investment worth making, then we need to mobilize a different number of travelers than we have today. And with that, I want to transition to the question about affordability and those who worry that this is an urban elite project. It cannot be, and it should not be. That's why you will see in the plan that competition is so prominently noted there, because we know this is not ideology. We know from the lines where competition has been introduced, and the Italian members of parliament will know this very well, that whenever you have a choice on Roma-Milano, you see a dramatic drop in prices, 30% to 40%. The same thing happens in Barcelona, Madrid, etc.
That's affordability, and that's when you get the motor shift, and people stop flying. Nobody flies from Milan to Rome anymore. They take a high-speed train because there are many options from different operators. So yes, to the question on affordability, this is not an elite project. And linked to that, also the point that you are making about territorial cohesion.
Again, it cannot be a plan that shifts resources to the high-speed network at the expense of the secondary lines because the rail system is an ecosystem. And rarely do you actually find a high-speed line that will take you from A to B exactly where you want to go. You will almost always have to take either a bus to the high-speed station or a secondary line to the high-speed line. And from then on, you speed up. And so, therefore, it cannot be an either-or between one or the other.
Again, this is why we are so clear that the price tag is real. Additional funding is necessary to implement this vision. And therefore, I come to the financing strategy. I've already said it. I agree with those who say what is available to the commission in CEF funding, or even other funds in the budget, will not be sufficient to finance this plan.
Hence, the financing strategy. And you're asking me, when? This year. This year. And what it is, it is a first conversation with all the investment banks, private pension funds, and all the lazy money, sorry, lying out there in Europe that is not being invested where it should be: in European infrastructure.
And to tell them, well, you see, high speed is actually a profitable investment. It is, if we can give you regulatory certainty. If you can choose, for instance, the financing model, and to the Italian speakers, Mr. Matteo and Mr. Riccioli, you initially used the regulatory asset-based model very much, yes?
So, this is a model where the regulator decides that for this line built in the future, the price of the ticket will be set at an acceptable affordability level for the passengers. Now you have a certain revenue stream that you know will be there for the next 20, 30, 40 years. That is then your basis as a private investor coming in. Other countries have used different models. There is Porto Touro in France that was financed as a PPP, funded with private money, also a different model.
So, what we want to do with the funding strategy is to talk to the sources of private funding, put all those models on the table, and then have a matchmaking against the different projects across Europe so that you can say, "Okay, for this line in Hungary and the Czech Republic," and, by the way, I should mention Poland because your country, Mr. Johnnski is one of the ones that gives me a lot of hope that this will actually materialize because you do have member states like Poland, the Czech Republic, and others that have already, with their own funding, dedicated euros to this, also very generous European funding, and are looking at this already not only from the national perspective but cross-border. So, this will certainly be possible. You asked me about the ticketing. I can say a lot, but not the date.
Sorry, Mr. Tighenhof, because that's the prerogative of the college. I can tell you that in DG Move, we will be ready before summer. And I can also tell you that Commissioner Titti Costas is extremely ambitious and sees this proposal as a game changer, and one that he looks forward to presenting to you. You already know the level of ambition from the political guidelines of the President, and this is what we will adhere to: that it is possible for passengers to book single or combined tickets on a single platform while retaining full passenger rights because, as you know, if you miss a train, this shouldn't be the end of the world.
You should be able to continue on another train with another operator without losing your passenger rights. And that is what we are going to include in the ticketing proposal. Military mobility. When you talk to military planners, they often say, yes, high-speed lines are relevant. But actually, more importantly, what we need are options, options to go different ways.
And speed is not always the most important thing for them. But something like ERTMS and a quick rollout of it is absolutely crucial. If military assets land in Rotterdam and have to be on the eastern flank, it must take a day, no more—not a week or whatever it takes now. And all the actions that are in the plan also work towards that. RailBaltica, which is a high-speed line, I think we all now realize, is also a military mobility priority.
So, we are using the high-speed line. We are using military mobility, all of these as mobilizing arguments for funding. And I certainly confirm to those who mention it that it should be the case. Mr. Laras is from Spain.
Let me start, of course, by once again expressing condolences for the victims at Atarmus. Maintenance is an issue. And therefore, we will adopt a life cycle approach to funding, as you said. Again, this would be part of the financing strategy. You must, from the start, factor in climate change resilience and adaptation.
And the technologies are there. And if you don't do it, as we have seen, built to European specifications, you end up paying a lot more for either accidents or rehabilitation afterwards. So, the financing strategy, talking to the construction companies, and all of that will be part of it. What is the best design for a high-speed line? What are the minimum requirements in order for this to be climate-resilient?
And what part of the budget do you need to set aside? Because you're not building for 5 years, you're building for 50 years. And, therefore, maintenance is an obvious part of it. The industrial strategy, Madame Devault,
You're right. There are some very impressive companies in this area in Europe at the moment. But at the moment, they have
I have almost too much work to do.
Kristian Schmidt
This really is the pinnacle of a European industry, which is gaining market share throughout the world. But I think that if we're not careful, and we don't start harmonization today, and we don't manage to create a real European standard for all rolling stock and start producing this at scale, then I worry that the market share we've got at the moment in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, we risk losing. We risk losing out to, you know, who. So, I think here we need to try to get ahead of this and ensure that the European rail industry can really achieve as much as it is capable of. So, yes, these companies are very important.
As for where the money is, I think I've already tried to respond to that. Just having a quick look through my list. I think, Madam Chair, I've probably managed to finish. I've certainly tried to cover all of the questions, and I've run out of time.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Monsieur Schmidt. Complicate the words. Let's finish. Thank you once again.
Now, dear colleagues, we move on to the roadworthiness package. The discussion on the amendments. This consists of two legislative files. One is on the periodic growth worthiness tests and technical roadside inspections, and the other one is on vehicle registration. We start with the proposal to update the rules for vehicle registration documents and the data to be recorded in national vehicle registers and exchanged between member states.
I would like to give the floor to our rapporteur, Mr. Danielson, to discuss the amendments that were tabled to the proposal. Mister Danielson, for 3 minutes, please. Thank you.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you, Cher. I would like to start by thanking my colleagues for the amendments that they have submitted. I think that the amendments I have received show broad engagement with the file and highlight a number of important issues that we need to address as we move forward. The amendments mainly focus on a few key areas. Thank you.
The balance between better data availability and data protection, the administrative burden for national authorities and citizens, the interoperability between national vehicle registers, and the need to ensure legal clarity for cross-border situations. As a rapid term, my objective is to find a balanced approach that strengthens cooperation between Member States with the aim to improve enforcement and reduce fraud, while fully respecting data protection rules and avoiding unnecessary complexity. But also, I would say, at the same time, it is important to ensure that administrative solutions do not result in avoidable costs or burdens for citizens, including those who may need or want to rely on physical registration documents. Secondly, I would also like to thank my colleagues for what I have understood is a really constructive atmosphere at the technical meetings that are currently ongoing. I think that makes me hopeful that we will find a strong consensus in support of reducing fraud, improving enforcement, and reducing burdens for both authorities and citizens.
I believe that we have already made good progress, and I'm looking forward to discussing the outstanding issues with the colleagues and shareholder apertures. I think I will stop here and listen to the colleagues. Thank you again, sir.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Danielson. Now, we start our discussion with the shadow rapporteurs. Mrs. Alexandra Meherst, you have the floor for two minutes, please.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 58
Much. Colleagues, the goal here is to have unified regulations for authorization documents for vehicles. And here, the conditions need to be developed in order to ensure that we can digitalize these documents and ensure the exchange of information between the member states. There are 154 amendments here. The devil is in the detail, and I think we need to ensure that we're not creating too much bureaucracy here.
Digitalization of the vehicle papers needs to make citizens' lives easier, not harder. So here, I think we need to ensure that we have simplification, but that we can also ensure better traceability, with, for example, tracing of criminal activity. I think this is something we can do by bringing this into line with other regulations and trying to create no additional bureaucracy for our citizens. So, there are a few questions here that remain to be clarified. Firstly, the data that is going to be saved on vehicle owners and vehicle holders.
This is something that has been covered differently in different member states in the past. And so, we need to ensure that we can get a good balance. And we also have to ensure that we're only saving information where that information actually provides added value. And I think this is a decision that should be up to the member states. In the next few weeks, we're going to be discussing this, and I'd like to thank the colleagues in advance very much for their support.
Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Mr. Leonardoelli is not here. Mr. Axenia? No. Mr. Christensen, please.
You have the floor.
Asger Christensen
Thank you. Is the question in passive Danish? Is it passive in Danish?
Yes. There is.
Asger Christensen
I'll speak in Danish.
I'd like to thank you very much and thank all of the colleagues who have contributed amendments. I think there are a lot of points that we agree on, but we also have to bear in mind that digitalization is a real priority here. We want to make swift progress. So, I think it's important for us to also take into account how we can make Viklona's lives easier. On the one hand, we have digitalization.
But on the other hand, we still need to ensure that people have paper copies of these documents. So, I'm very much looking forward to our cooperation on this, and I hope we'll get some good results.
Tilly Metz
Thank you very much, dear Chair Deborah Pauter, also Mr. Danielson, dear colleagues. To start with, we support the very good draft report tabled by Mr. Danielson, which further improved the Commission proposal in terms of environment, public health, consumer protection, and digital accessibility. There are two additions that I would like to make. To start with, it would be important to give consumers across the EU more information regarding vehicles' characteristics, including dimensions that are relevant for parking, visibility, and impact severity, like width, length, but also the bonnet leading edge height. This information should be included in the vehicle registration documents.
Germany and Italy already mandate the inclusion of vehicle lengths and vehicle heights on registration certificates. But today, the requirements for mandatory data in registration documents are diverging and create challenges in the implementation. So, further harmonization of these requirements at the EU level would ensure that citizens across the Union have access to this information. Harmonizing the information included in the vehicle registers will contribute to fostering the cross-border sale of vehicles, enhancing the efficient functioning of the internal market, business operations, and freedom of movement of people within the EU. It would also be important in providing reliable, comparable data supporting the future of the European automotive sector. Secondly, another topic close to our hearts is bicycle theft. The theft of bicycles discourages cycling and encourages cross-border criminality.
According to official police statistics, there are around 1,300,000 bicycles reported stolen annually in the EU, and the major problem of bicycle theft recovery is being able to provide proof of ownership. So what we are asking for, national bicycle registers would be very successful. Also, as a great deal of stolen bikes are sold cross-border, cooperation at the AU level would really provide added value. That's why I think we should ask the commission to evaluate the effectiveness of national bicycle identification registers and consider taking action to facilitate the exchange of information on bicycle identification in order to combat fraud and the illegal trade in stolen bicycles. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mrs. Metz. Missus Kuntura, from the left.
Elena Kountoura
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to start by thanking Mr. Danielson very much for the excellent cooperation and for all of his work. We have got, I think, much clearer and much more credible documents, and I think this is incredibly important when we are talking about certification and the security of vehicles. I think it's vital. It's incredibly important and will help us achieve our goals.
The good quality and updating of these documents are also vital. It will help us to actually control the documents, make sure there's no fraud, and ensure that environmental norms are met as well. And it will also help us to protect, of course, the internal market. Now, when it comes to cases of fraud, there are often cases relating to mileage counters. And here, I think this is an area where it's particularly important for us to collect data on mileage so that we can protect consumers.
We're also very much in favor of digitalization, but we have to protect people's private lives and their right to keep their personal data private. If people prefer to have paper documents, they should be able to have that option available to them. And we should also ensure that we can certify that these documents are correct.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Does any colleague want to take the floor? No? Ah, yes, please. You have the floor, sir. For one minute, please.
For one minute.
Thank you. Thank you.
Julien Leonardelli
Thank you very much, Chair, colleagues. Once again, Brussels is talking to us about simplification when actually, it's really just more of the same: fewer controls for member states and higher risk for our people. Now, with this reform, a vehicle that's registered anywhere in the Union can drive on the roads in our country, in France, without the countries being able to properly check what has been done for that registration. This will mean fewer safe vehicles on our roads. They'll increase restraints on our drivers and our families, while reducing requirements elsewhere.
So, it's a question of double standards. Now, Miss Van der Leyen says that she wants to promote road safety, but you can't do this by weakening controls and sovereignty. The people of Europe, especially in France, are clearly opposed to this move in this direction because you cannot decide these questions in Brussels. We need to ensure that we have the countries able to set the standards for their roads. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Leonard Deli. And Missus Valan is here. Okay. Yes. Missus Valan, deputy head of the unit, did you move?
You have the floor for 2 minutes. Thank you very much.
Speaker 70
Thank you, Madam Chair. We are pleased that much of the Commission's ambition on this file may be taken up by the Parliament. We hope that the Parliament will maintain the Commission's ambition on the transition to mobile registration certificates. On mutual recognition, we see the logic of allowing member states to refuse recognition of a registration certificate for vehicles that have not been granted EU type approval. We understand and appreciate the thinking behind such proposals, particularly from the perspective of road safety.
On possible fallback and backup mechanisms enabling verification of registration data in cases of technical failure, we don't view such mechanisms as absolutely necessary. Also, no such mechanism was included in, for example, the directive on driving licenses. The verifier should not need Internet access to perform their tasks. On the side of the driver, existing legislation already provides that the issuer of the wallet must ensure that the whole range of possible risks is properly assessed and addressed. We could also see positively a newly proposed definition of temporary deregistration, and we have no issues in principle with the amendment to grant vehicle holders the right to request free digital access to their vehicle-related data, which are stored in the national register.
Speaker 71
Regarding the bicycle theft, I would just like to point out that already now, vehicle registration, so registration of any vehicle, is in the remit of member states. So that also applies to bicycles, and it's outside the scope of this proposal. Finally, regarding the information to be included in national registers, we would reiterate the need to ensure that the vehicle registration directive text is aligned with the end-of-life vehicle directive regulation. It is of the utmost importance for the enforcement of the end-of-life vehicle regulation to be able to track the owner of the vehicle. Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mrs. Wallach. And now, Mr. Danielson, you have the floor again.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you. I will be brief. Thank you to the colleagues for all the constructive comments. And I'm sure that we will find agreements in the continued talks that we will have, also to find a balance of what data we actually store in the register. I'm glad that several of you pointed out the need to also ensure that people who need it also get the ability to get the paper copy.
And also, Ms. Tielemetz also mentioned some of the information that would be necessary to harmonize from her perspective. And I think if we work within the group of shadows, we could find a constructive wording on this that I hope will find majority support. So thank you for all the comments, and I am looking forward to continuing the discussions.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. And now, let's move to the second file of the worthiness package: the directive amending the directive on periodic roadworthiness tests, and the directive on technical roadside inspections. 546 amendments have been tabled in Tran, including the 58 tabled by Mr. Gizige in his draft report. The discussions on the file have started at the technical level. So now, I would like to invite our reporter, Mr. Gizige, to comment on the amendments tables.
You have the floor, Mr. Giseke, for 3 minutes. Thank you very much.
Jens Gieseke
Thank you very much, Chair and dear colleagues. Roadworthiness testing is a cornerstone of European road safety policy. It plays a vital role in ensuring that vehicles circulating on our roads meet essential safety and environmental requirements. By doing so, it helps prevent accidents caused by technical failures and contributes to reducing harmful emissions. Regular and reliable testing protects drivers, passengers, and all other road users.
The last revision of this regulation took place in 2014, 12 years ago. So now, it is obviously time to act. Since then, vehicles, safety systems, and traffic patterns have evolved significantly. Against this background, it is right and necessary that we update this legislation now. However, we must proceed with a sense of proportion and balance.
This revision is not about full harmonization. Across the European Union, we have 27 different testing systems, each tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of the respective member state. That diversity must not be overlooked in this revision. Our objective should be clear: to further improve road safety without creating disproportionate burdens for citizens, businesses, or national administrations. Unfortunately, I see several amendments from some political groups moving in the wrong direction.
A concrete example is a call by some for mandatory annual roadworthiness tests for vehicles older than 10 years or even earlier. Yes, 17 member states already apply such a system, but the data show that this does not automatically lead to lower accident rates. Nine member states with annual inspections have higher road fatality rates than Germany, which applies a biannual testing system. If we compare to Denmark, where vehicles are also inspected every two years, the number even rises to 15 member states. In addition, annual testing would significantly increase the costs.
These costs would disproportionately affect people with lower incomes. That is not the signal we should be sending at the European level. For these reasons, we and the European People's Party will continue to support the existing system, which allows member states to decide for themselves whether vehicles are tested annually or every two years. I'm equally critical of proposals to extend mandatory testing to trailers of categories one and two. In some member states, these trailers are not even registered, and cross-border traffic involving them is virtually nonexistent.
Imposing an EU-wide testing obligation in this area would be disproportionate. Member states are perfectly capable of determining appropriate measures themselves. So, you pointed out the fact that we have more than 600 amendments, but I think a solution to find viable compromises for all those amendments is possible. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Gizige. Now, we start our discussions with the shadow reporters. Mister Gonzalez, you have the floor, sir, for 2 minutes.
Sérgio Gonçalves
Thank you very much, Chair. I'd like.
To start, I want to thank the rapporteur and his team for all the work they have put into this on the technical level. I really have two points that I'd like to make with respect to the amendments and the ongoing negotiations. First, this proposal offers us an important opportunity to modernize roadworthiness inspections of vehicles and technical inspections, and to take advantage of more advanced technologies to ensure that Europe is fully in line with innovation here and keeps up with developments in this very important field. Now, we see this when, for example, you look at particulate emissions of vehicles or NOx emissions in inspections, but also with respect to remote sensing technologies. Now, of course, we need to reduce deaths on Europe's roads and give cleaner air to our cities, so we need to use the most efficient and effective tools available in order to achieve that.
Now, of course, there are going to be transitions involved, but this is nothing compared to the comparative advantages that we will achieve through these changes, making the most of the new techniques and new technologies. Also, I'd just like to say that the S and D group is available to work constructively to help arrive at a compromise. For example, if the rapporteur is firmly opposed to the idea of having a new inspection for new vehicles like 10 years ago, well, we can look at that. Also, looking at setting the deadlines over 10, 11, 12 years, and also on the points that are less controversial, that vehicles, for instance, from a certain age must be subject to annual inspections. So, we really want to say that a vehicle that is 20 or 25 years old should not be subject to annual inspections.
So, I'm sure we can find points of convergence on these and many other points here and be able to work constructively together. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mrs. Rachel Blom?
Chair.
Rachel Blom
Colleagues, my thanks to the rapporteur and his colleagues for all the work on this. For Patriots for Europe, the point of departure is very clear. Technically, inspections must contribute to road safety. Modernization is needed, but the new measures must be affordable and implementable. We need to think about the frequency of testing.
The first, after four years, and then after two years, to have an automatic annual inspection requirement for all vehicles is not practicable. The technical requirements are closely linked to accidents, but we have to remember the effect that this will have on people with small budgets and business persons. We can support a range of measures. We need to think about inspectors being able to work with effective tools. For instance, new technologies should only be introduced once it has been clearly defined that they can be implemented and that they work in all Member States.
We cannot have a centralized, EU-wide quota-based system introduced. The Member States must have the flexibility to manage it as it suits them. Registration for M1 and M4 vehicles is something that we can support as long as it does not lead to additional administrative burdens for garages and business persons. Also, Member States need to be able to make their own choices, for instance, regarding alternative safety requirements for mopeds and other vehicles. So, for the 125 cc and the 50 cc vehicles, introducing regulations for these would seem to be too far for us.
Finally, regarding the question of safety recalls, we are in favor of the rapid deployment of recalls, but automatically linking an open recall to a revocation of registration goes too far. The registration and recall situation is not always up to date and uniform, and there will not be a single date from which vehicle makers will have to provide this information. We have to ensure that safety requirements lie first and foremost with the vehicle makers themselves. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to ensure more safety, better affordability, and practicality of all the measures. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Is Mister Krotilek here? No. We move on to Mr. Christensen, please.
Asger Christensen
Thank you very much, and thank you to all of the colleagues who contributed to this and to all of the proposals. I very much agree with the rapporteur on many points. Let me say that this is really linked to the work on the Directive. Which means what? It means that we need to review the role that Member States have played in the directive.
I certainly support what Ms. Bouk said. This will allow us to ensure greater safety on our roads, as well as for buyers of the vehicles. We would be opposed to anything beyond the 10-year limit, however. Now, if there are annual controls, this will, of course, give rise to additional costs for our citizens.
And it is the Member States that should be taking decisions like these with respect to the frequency of testing. So, I would like to take a closer look at the Commission's proposals and think about the sort of red tape that they are going to cause. Moving also to this electronic documentation, I can understand that it's important, but any reform needs to make sense. These controls need to make sense. We need to ensure that there is a true added value in terms of road safety for any change that is introduced.
So, my thanks to the rapporteur for the excellent work that he has done.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you. Much. And Missus Metz, you have the floor.
Tilly Metz
Thank you very much. Dear reporter Jens Gieseker. Today, 95% of Europeans live in places where air pollution exceeds the healthy levels recommended by the WHO. Both short- and long-term exposure to air pollution can lead to a wide range of diseases, including stroke, lung cancer, and asthma. And road transport alone is responsible for over 35% of nitrogen oxides emissions and around 9% of particulate matter emissions, causing, for transport alone, 70,000 premature deaths in the EU every year.
That's why I strongly support the Commission's proposal that introduced new test methods for ultrafine particles and nitrogen oxides to capture high-emitting vehicles. I also welcome the proposal on remote sensing, which has been successfully used for years in several countries around the world to ensure that vehicles causing the largest part of air pollution are detected. For the same reason, I found it extremely worrying that amendments from some right-wing MEPs are trying to weaken these provisions by making testing voluntary. That is not balanced or proportionate. It's negligent and irresponsible towards all those suffering or even dying because of air pollution.
Then a few words about two-wheelers. Motorcycles and mopeds account for more than one-fifth of rotors in the EU, and the share has risen even though overall it has declined. All available data confirm that regular testing for motorcycles in the PTI has a positive impact on road safety. So I find it quite concerning that there are member states who are defending the opt-out clause for member states or even proposing to delete the L category for the PTI scope completely. And in my view, it also makes sense to include mopeds and motorcycles under 125 cc.
And finally, that's my last point on testing cars: more frequent testing of older vehicles can also contribute to reducing both crashes and harmful emissions. And of course, we have to make it transparent in price and also affordable. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Mrs. Kondura, please. Thank you.
Elena Kountoura
Thank you very much, Chair. I'd also like to thank Mr. Gieske, the rapporteur, for the work he's done on this, for the good cooperation that we've had, and for all of the work that has been put into getting a solution for this rather complex, rather technical dossier. There are a number of different points of convergence here: the fact that we need to extend the scope of application in order to cover two-wheeled vehicles, and also the fact that we need to take into account different types of data and different situations, as proposed by the Commission. But there are also a number of important points that have been left open, where we have not found a compromise.
For instance, the on-site inspections need to be adapted to new technologies. Think, for instance, of some driver assistance systems. Well, this directive also needs to include the fact that we need to take into account the condition of the electric battery for electric vehicles. That's actually a very important point that needs to be checked to ensure road safety and vehicle reliability. But also in terms of consumer protection and used vehicle sales.
Looking at the commission proposal, the whole question of periodic technical inspections at the end of the fourth year, then two years later, and then annually, that's what we see. Really, it would seem that the age of the vehicle is the main criterion to apply when considering the different problems that the vehicle might have. Of course, we don't want to make things any more complex than they need to be. We, of course, need to be effective, modern, and efficient. I think this is a real opportunity for us to ensure improved road safety and better inspection processes, knowing that we need to ensure that conviction converges with the Vision Zero objectives.
Thank you.
Speaker 18
And, Sharon, thanks to Mr. Gieseke for his work and also for his critical remarks, which we share in several regards. The inclusion of additional vehicle categories, such as light trailers or some two-wheelers, is not convincingly justified. In our opinion, there is no clear evidence that differing national rules significantly impair the internal market or systematically create safety risks. Instead, this appears to us to be blanket harmonization.
For business owners, farmers, and micro-entrepreneurs, this means additional inspection obligations, fees, workshop time, and documentation requirements. Private individuals with trailers or secondary vehicles are also more heavily burdened. The added safety benefit remains unclear. We view the expansion of vehicle categories subject to inspection as highly problematic and believe the national circumstances that have led to different levels of regulation across the EU states have historical reasons that the EU must respect. The proposed shortening of inspection cycles is not supported by a differentiated risk analysis.
There is no clear distinction between high-risk vehicles and rarely used vehicles, nor is the statistical contribution of technical defects to accidents precisely quantified. For citizens, this means more hassle, higher fees for businesses, additional downtime of fleets, and increased administrative work. The fact that no majority has yet been found to limit delegated acts is also problematic for us. We risk once again adopting legislation as a Parliament that the Commission can gradually reshape in substance by using delegated acts to make both small and large changes. We will also watch the process in this respect.
Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, all the shadow reporters. And now, for one minute, Mr. Leonhard Daley, please.
Thank you.
Julien Leonardelli
Thank you very much, Chair. Once again, the EU is attacking people in their daily lives, leaving them without a choice. We're seeing here that 1 million French people are going to be affected by these new vehicle inspection requirements. They're going to have to spend more money to meet additional standards under increased restrictions. People who need to take their cars to work, to take their kids to school, and to live lives in the big cities.
Technical failings are only a small part of the causes of accidents on the road. And this is not an answer to the real problem. It is simply more red tape punishing our citizens, making car users pay more money. At the same time, the European Commission is working to open up its roads to increase global competition by reducing standards for some. It simply doesn't make sense.
It does not contribute to safety. It's simply not fair. Now, despite what's been said, the commission insists that, all too often, it is Europe's people who are paying the price. We continue to call on good sense and justice to ensure that our people have what they need because transport is not a luxury. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Missus Valan, for two minutes, please, from Digimoo. Thank you.
Speaker 70
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor and the opportunity to participate in this discussion. On motorcycles, periodical testing has clear benefits for road safety. Extending these two motorcycles by about 50 cubic centimeters would, therefore, be a positive development. Regarding older vehicles, we would be disappointed to see this measure deleted entirely without an attempt at a compromise.
This measure is justified, given its benefits. 16 member states already started annual testing more than ten years ago, and for good reasons. This includes safety, emission reductions, and job creation. We remain concerned by the prospect of reduced ambition in remote sensing. It has been demonstrated time and again that a very small percentage of vehicles are responsible for most of the pollution.
This technology has already been in use for many years in a number of developed countries. In Belgium and Lithuania, for example, remote sensing has been found to be very cost-efficient in detecting high-polluting vehicles. In Spain, a standard defining the technical requirements and operational specifications for roadside remote sensing instruments has just been officially adopted. Making this measure optional would take away most of the expected benefits associated with it. We would want to see increased ambition on emission testing of vans to detect defective or tampered vehicles and to ensure fair competition in the internal market.
Then, targets for roadside checks for vans should not be left to member states alone. This would essentially remove the benefit of including them in the scope. On the automator front, any reduction in the scope would lead to data gaps in the automator history of vehicles, and consequently, it would reduce consumer confidence in such a system, in particular in cross-border trade and for imports. So, limiting the mandatory recording to only testing centers and repairs authorized by vehicle manufacturers is, therefore, a step back in our view. As regards recall campaigns, we see the benefit of including such provisions.
However, such requirements would be better suited to the annexes and should be left to member states to organize and adapt to their national systems. As regards trailers, I would just like to comment that after assessment, we did not include trailers in the commission proposal. And finally, in relation to testing of NOx and PN, there would be little point in including new requirements on delegated acts because the legal text, as proposed by the Commission, and the annexes already include the necessary provisions. In addition, any proposal to make PN and NOx testing optional for member states would be a serious retrograde step, in our view. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. And now, Mister Giseke, you have the floor for your last comments. Thank you.
Thank you.
Jens Gieseke
You. I'd like to thank all colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs, others who've taken the floor here, and also the commission. I think there's a large degree of consensus here, and we all agree that we want to meet this goal of having minimum standards but maximum benefit in terms of fewer accidents and better health as the route to actually getting there. There might be some debate. One thing we need to ensure is that it is safe, affordable, and implementable.
I also like to thank Chris, in particular, for reminding us of the subsidiarity principle and the importance of that. Mr. Leon Adelhi here often says that, you know, Europe has no point and that we always forget about subsidiarity, and that that's not something we think about. We need to remember not to impose too much burden and cost on European citizens. Well, there are different ways of doing this.
One thing that we need to do in any case is to work constructively. I don't necessarily see that in his case, but it certainly makes for a good show here in the committee. And I guess that's just the way it is. With the question of remote sensing, we do need to ensure cost efficiency. It can't be too much for the member states.
And with respect to the kilometer odometer fraud, well, of course, we need to ensure that there is an effective way to deal with that. Miss Cornwallis was also talking about the older vehicles, saying that maybe we could be more flexible there, maybe not making it ten years, but even older vehicles. You also talked about the 20-25 year old vehicles. And here, we're getting close to end-of-life vehicles, I would think. Now, that's actually going to be discussed in the environment committee, and decisions will be made on that.
We need to talk about the vehicles that are currently on our roads and set standards for them, but I think we'll get there. In any case, the SND approach is very constructive. I would really like to thank you for that. Now, of these over 600 proposed amendments, we will continue our work at the technical level. We will have a meeting with the shadow rapporteurs, and I'm optimistic that by April, we will be able to put something together.
My aim is to have this dealt with this year, maybe not under the Cyprus presidency, but under the Irish presidency. And we can conclude work on that then, because we need to have certainty in terms of planning. We need to be able to get things done. And I think all of this is a step in the right direction. I look forward to our continued cooperation.
Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Gizige. Congratulations to you also and to all the reporters. We have come to the end of our meeting tonight. Thanks, many thanks to the participants, interpreters, ushers, and technicians. I wish you all a very nice evening. Thank you.
Speaker 79
This mic turns on very easily. One time, I said something funny with one of my expressions that nobody would understand, but I had taken off the earphones and forgotten to switch off the mic. Hmm. And so I said, have a good evening. And then I said, pieces of when I took off the mic, which means a bunch of bunk.
Speaker 78
You know? Hmm. I knew they wouldn't know, but luckily, most of them had their mics off. So.
Speaker 85
Oh, yes. We did use a piece of BM. Oh, yeah. I'm going to call my chauffeur and tell him we are finished.
In which booth is it?
Turn it off. It's off.
Is it off now?
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.