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 sittingsSpeaker 1
It's a roll call. We open the vote. We close the vote. It is adopted, 30 seven in favor. Two against, two abstentions.
We go now to the second vote on the report on enhancing connectivity, preserving cultural heritage, and driving local excellence in European tourism. The report comes ahead of the commission sustainable tourist strategy, and we have also received the CALT Committee's input through their opinion in letter form. Our reporter is mister Daniel Atar from the SAT. We have five compromise amendments. Let's move straight ahead, and we start with the first one.
Okay. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? It is adopted.
Oh, sorry. Compromise to who is in favor? Who is against abstentions? It is adopted. Compromise three.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions. It is adopted. They compromise for, in favor, against, abstentions adopted, and compromise five.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. Adopted. We go to.
Speaker 1
Close the vote. It's adopted. 33 in favor. Four against, and four abstentions. K.
Now we go to, on the Tron opinion on the digital omnibus on AI, for which the lead committees are Imco and Libet. Our tranco coordinators decided in November to do this opinion in the form of a letter due to time constraints. Our rapporteur for the opinion is Missus Vivian Constanzo from the SMB, and we have a single vote covering the whole text. It's a roll-call vote. So we open the vote.
Speaker 1
Close the vote. We close the vote. 13 for, 4 against, 4 abstentions. Congratulations, Missus Constanza. And we go to the sound.
No. The last vote today is the proposal for pilot projects and preparatory actions submitted to Tran for inclusion in the 2027 budget. I would like to remind that under rule 96, committee support is required for these proposals to be included in the 2026 budget. First, we will vote on each proposal one by one, and then we will do a roll call vote on the whole package. So pro, yeah.
It's for the GTA. Number one, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are adopted. Number two in favor?
Against. Abstentions are adopted. Number three in favor. Against. Abstentions.
It's adopted. Number four in favor. Against. Abstentions adopted. Number five in favor?
Against. Abstentions. It's adopted. Number six in favor? Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. Number seven in favor. Against? Abstentions ?
It is not clear. Again, in favor. In favor. Again. Against abstentions?
I think it's adopted. We vote for that, please, just to be clear. It's the number 7. We vote.
Speaker 1
Open the vote. Okay? We close the vote. 19 in favor, 12 against, 11 abstentions. So it is adopted.
Number eight, who is in favor? Who is against abstentions? It's adopted. Number nine in favor? Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. Number 10. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstentions. It's adopted. Number 11. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions. Unclear. We vote, please. Number 11. We close the vote.
18 in favor, 19 against, and 5 abstentions. It's rejected. It's rejected, this one. Now it's the final call. It's roll-on.
We open the vote. We close the vote. It is adopted. Vast majority, 34 in favor, two against, six abstentions. Thank you very much for voting.
Under stress.
Thank you. Have a nice day.
You leaving your position?
Speaker 1
Dear colleagues, we have two items on our agenda. Thank you. So our first consideration for today, the draft report of Mr. Matteo Ricci, our Vice President, on the commission's amended proposal, amending the Euro Vignette directive to include the CO2 effects of trailers, and to simplify certain provisions. I would like to remind you, dear colleagues, that the deadline for tabling amendments has been set for 24 March at twelve.
In addition, please note for this report, the AT4 amendment system, AM system, will not be available to table amendments due to the specifics of the Commission proposal. It is an amended proposal and making used are in competition with 84. The secretariat will send an amendment template to be used instead, and will provide the necessary explanations. Now, we can move to the discussion. Mister Ricci, you have the floor, sir, for 3 minutes.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 9
Almost thirty years now, the Euro vignette directive has laid down the rules for road charges for HDVs on the TNT network. And this has developed over years. There is to be a more consistent toll system. Gradually, we've moved from a system that was based on time-based vignettes to a toll system based on the distances. And it's also introduced the differentiated charging in line with CO2 emissions, and has applied in practice the polluter and user pays principle.
In 2022, with the last revision of the directive, we introduced the differentiated system on the basis of CO2 emissions for heavy goods vehicles. However, during that phase, it wasn't possible to include the effect of trailers and semitrailers because there wasn't a legal framework yet available to assess their impact on those emissions. And that's why then in May 2023, the commission presented another targeted proposal which aims to include trailers and semi-trailers in the scope of the directive. The rationale for including that point is one that we can understand and one that we can support. In principle, the trailers don't produce emissions directly, but they do have an impact on overall emissions.
And using more efficient trailers with the technology that's developed in recent years could help to reduce the overall emissions of road transport. And encouraging their adoption with a different kind of charging could mean that we have more efficient logistics combinations. However, as we know, this proposal from 2023 was not adopted by the co-legislators mainly because there was a lack of consensus among the member states in the council, in particular on how to include the application to everyone involved, such as the operators of the toll systems and the logistics operators and the transport operators. And then that means that we've had a parallel development of the legislation. In 2024, there was an update to the CO2 emission standards for HDVs, and this meant that there was an impact on the Euro Vignette 2023 proposal.
And so that is why in October 2025, the commission presented a further amendment to its initial proposal, and it simplified certain points and aligned other points for the Eurovignette directive. And so that means that it will still have everything that was added in 2023, which would also look at the effects of the trailers and the semi-trailers. As Raboteau, I'd like to say that I support the new points added in the 2025 update. They're necessary from a legal perspective to ensure proper implementation of the directive, and to ensure that there is continuity in the legislation, especially when it comes to the current classification rules for emissions of vehicles. When it comes to the inclusion of trailers in toll systems, the main concerns are not legislative concerns, but rather practical concerns.
The main point is the possibility of actually identifying the trailer used in real time in a vehicle combination, to ensure the effective enforcement of the rules that are applicable. There are also technical challenges here, and they can't be solved only through these new proposals. So before we look at applying a reliable technology and looking at applying this to the logistics, we need to make sure that they have been tested properly. Now looking at the current situation and the problems when it comes to implementation and the potential additional challenges when you want to include those trailers, and there's not enough technical clarity as well, then I think that we need to be cautious here. At the same time, I'm aware of the need to reach an agreement with those new elements added to the update in 2025.
In particular, the aim is to look at the emissions reduction trajectory and to look at what's being done for emission classes two and three. We need to make sure that there's legal certainty, techno feasibility, and regulatory coherence. So that is why the rapporteur would therefore suggest that we postpone this discussion on the trailers until the future, until it is the right time, and until we have mature technology. And so I'll focus on the points added in 2024, which are essential for guaranteeing the feasibility and the technical application. So I've had a chance to discuss this with the shadows and the approach, and I'm aware that we will need to have further discussions.
I am open to suggestions and proposals from colleagues who would like to look at this approach, and we need to bear in mind the administration aspect that could arise when we look at the classifications. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Mr. Ricci. Now we start our discussion with the shadow reporters. First, Mister Markus Verber, please.
Speaker 11
Yeah. Thank you very much, Chair, dear colleagues. Thank you for your presentation, Mister Ricci, of the draft report on the amendment to the EuroVignette directive. And I want to recall that this targeted amendment was presented by the commission to promote the market uptake of efficient trailers. Maybe the council has forgotten the reason of this redraft.
I think it is urgently needed. Our European trailer industry still has a competitive advantage, but clouds loom over the future. The CO2 emission standards performance regulation, the so called fleet target, obliges trailer manufacturers to reduce their emissions by up to 10% starting from 2030. Given that e-trailers are more expensive to purchase for hauliers and logistic companies, the market uptake currently is limited. That's exactly the reason why the commission has proposed this targeted amendment in 2023 and, again, in 2025, to lower operational costs of more efficient trailers and boost their market uptake.
CO two differentiated road charging rules are already well known for the motor vehicles. E trucks may even benefit from a complete toll exemption in some member states, like the one I know best. Given that the legislators have strict CO2 emission reduction targets for both the motor vehicle and for trailers, I agree with the commission that we should incentivize efficient trailers. The rapporteur, in his draft report, follows the line of the council and thereby misses an opportunity to boost both competitiveness and decarbonization. Efficient trailers are a readily available technique to lower transport emissions in the European Union, and this positive effect can, however, only materialize if we send incentives instead of penalties.
I do believe that we have to use this commission proposal and keep the reference to efficient trailers. As parliament, we have to send a strong signal to our industry that we want to support them in their transition phase. A second aspect, bridging solutions can play an important role in reducing carbon emissions already today. Range extender vehicles, for example, have an emission savings potential that could be unleashed immediately. Given the fact that these bridging solutions are more expensive, we should give member states that wish to do so the possibility of incentivizing those vehicles.
An option voluntarily from member states, meaning the principle of subsidiarity, I think should be respected. It also promotes technological neutrality, which is a key aspect for me as EPP's shadow rapporteur. I thank the rapporteur once again for his draft report, and I hope that we can work on this file in a constructive manner in order to finalize negotiations swiftly, which we are obliged to because there are some time limits. I have made my priorities clear, and I'm convinced that we should be more ambitious than the member states have ever been.
Speaker 16
Yes. Thank you, madam chair. And I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the work that he's done. And this report is working on a proposal, which has a very technical objective. We want to have this consistency in the legal framework.
And so it's in that context that I'd like to say that it's impossible that we would have something that's aiming for simplification, but then you would decide not to extend this to the differentiation in terms of the CO2 for the trailers and the semi-trailers. This would actually be an aspect that could be added to the operational side. And it would be very difficult to do it, and it wouldn't be, bearing in mind the benefits in terms of the environment. However, we cannot just be restricting ourselves to a technical approach. This needs a broader approach here.
We need to have this complex review of the euro vignette system because there's a lack of respect for technological neutrality. It's very imbalanced because there's only one focus here, and it's on the electric. And we need to think that there are also other low emissions solutions that are already available when it comes to heavy goods transport. And so that's why this review must correct that situation, and it should guide the directive back on to an approach that is technologically neutral, one that could be closer to the operational conditions of the sector.
Speaker 15
you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Matteo, for the presentation of your report. Why do we discuss this? We discuss this because we have the aim of reducing CO2 emissions. And the aim of reducing CO2 emissions is concerning the truck itself, but it's concerning the trailers as well because trailers can be a tool, and this has been identified in the CO2 emission standards regulation for heavy-duty vehicles.
Speaker 14
So we know that it's about innovation in trailers and innovation in trucks. We see at the same time that marked uptake of innovative solutions, may it be electric trucks or electric trailers, is not as we wished it to be. That's why we have introduced in the Eurovinet regulation already the provision that member states have the option. It's not an obligation, but the option to make trucks that are electric vehicles free of charge in the Eurovinet regulation. Unfortunately, most member states don't do it.
Let's be very clear as well. So I called on the member states to make use of this option and to reduce the costs that are borne by trucks with electric propulsion. At the same time, now we have the discussion on trailers. And I pretty much agree with my colleague, Markus Faber, that we should support this innovation in the trailer industry. The same way, we want to support the innovation on the truck side.
So electrification of trailers is a positive thing, and commission rightly addressed this with their targeted amendment to the euro vignette file. I would call on the rapporteur for this reason to include this into the negotiations with the council in order to see what we can achieve. I'm totally aware that member states are pretty reluctant on including provisions on this, but we need a way forward as well if we want to achieve the targets that we have set out for ourselves. At the same time, we would like to support innovation in the truck segment as well. And therefore, I would call to include new provisions into the EuroVignette directive that would include, for example, range extenders, other technologies that are not electric or classic internal combustion engine, with a reduced fee in the EuroVignette regulation.
This is the direction of the amendments I intend to table, knowing that we have time constraints for the negotiations. I'm totally aware of this. But I think that we should, parliament, at least try to be ambitious, be innovative, be technological neutral. And in this spirit, I think that we can achieve a good parliament's position, and I'm ready to work with our reporter on this behalf. Thank you.
Lena Schilling
Yes. Thank you so much. I would also like to start thanking Matteo Ricci for the draft report. I thought it was a really good proposal. And I also appreciate it very much, the first, I would say, constructive exchange during our shadow meeting.
We talk about decarbonization. We talk about the truck's weight. We talk about trailers. We all know how difficult it will be to get an amendment through from the commission because the council is blocking, and that it will be quite a fight. And I think in this limited revision proposed by the commission, me and my group will try to propose the following points.
I think first, it's very clear that what the commission is trying to do there, tackle the issue of trailers in the European vignette, is highly important. And however, as of today, the technical solutions for the implementation are complex, also as my colleague just said. So that was also why we supposed today this pilot project on vector tools and trying to see how this will work out and how we can actually try to work on this technical issue. So I would really like to hear from my colleagues from EPP maybe later or in the following negotiations what you think about the vector tool and why you're not in favor of trying that in a pilot project, because I really thought it is one initiative where we can have a move forward. And where we need to talk about technical solutions more than ever, because if we agree, and Faber agreed, Urtin agreed, I agree, we need to get trailers into the Euro Vignette directive.
The commission proposal that they put forward was a good one, but I really there, I'm wondering, so maybe you can explain that to me later. And then as Greens, we also support the inclusion of externalities into the tolling system. Polluters need to pay their fair share. That's something that is very clear to us. We need to have a clear distribution of the transport system as it is.
And the first or fourth point that I wanted to make is that this proposal is intended for technical alignments and trailers. We do not support any kind of toll reduction for so-called bridging technologies, as this was not intended by the European Commission and also does not make sense from our point of view. So let's develop one system that is properly designed and includes realistic applications and enforcement. And therefore, we should stick together and try to make a deal. Looking forward to continuing these negotiations with all of you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 20
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, dear rapporteur, for your draft report. With this process, I have get wider info about the trailer areas problems, and I'm a little bit worried that our commission partners, DEFIS, Tran, Envi, we urgently need better coordination between commission directorates in general to avoid losing critical skills and know how about Europe by looking it only one ankle. Envy is looking the cco2 and other emissions. DEFIS is looking its own part.
TRAN is looking at its own part. And for example, I check out the very important site opening heavy-duty trailers. They would definitely need a special category in all the EU regulations. EU regulations have not identified these special trailers, for example, which are never driven empty and do have lower overall emissions when they are not driven empty in any cases. In addition, it has not been understood that, for example, in the transport of explosives and defense equipments, these trailers are the only ones possible in this use.
And these transports are carried out by basic logistics companies in our everyday lives. It is a regulation. If the regulation does not identify these kinds of trailers, for example, as a category in its own right, there's a real risk of losing all of this trailer manufacturing in Europe, and that is a big risk to the security of supply and the safe transport of explosives and defense equipment more broadly, for example. They are also used in flower business, for example, because they are very easy to operate. Construction also, but they are heavier because you really understand that those manufacturers built safe and workable loading systems to do with these trailers. But in EU system, because our commission partners don't kind of communicate with each other.
Speaker 23
We don't have this kind of info, this kind of knowledge. And I'm a little bit worried that if we won't push as a parliament to commission people to work more together, we are going deeper and deeper into silos, which really affects and really harms the regulation, which exists and which is developed ahead. But thank you, dear Rabateur. I think we can find the solutions and find a way also so the commission that we have to look to the future, not only for the back mirror. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Missus Kilonen. Before I give the floor again to our reporter, Mister Ricci, I will give the floor to the commission. Mister Negreanu, please.
Speaker 21
Thank you very much, dear honorable chair, Wossenberg. I would like to start by expressing our sincere gratitude for the ambitious timeline that the parliament has attributed to this file. It is, of course, that the inter-institutional negotiations can start on time to ensure that the EuroVignette maintains its predictability and functionality, with the changes that are stemming from the CO2 standards. As you very well noted, the Europoiture proposal has two objectives. One is to incentivize the deployment of efficient trailers by modulating the toll tariffs based on the effect that those trailers have on the emissions of the vehicle combinations.
Speaker 22
And secondly, to maintain the high quality and the consistent EU legislation by correcting and simplifying the provisions of the directive that refer to the CO2 emission standards for heavy duty vehicles. We, as commission, have to acknowledge that the conditions are not yet in place for a digital application of toll rates based on the trailer characteristics, but we, however, deeply regret that the exclusion of trailers is proposed. Indeed, efficient trailers are a cost-efficient technology that contribute to the decarbonization of road transport. While saying that, we also recall the importance of a quick adoption of the section on correction and simplification. The entry into force by July is very much advisable, as it would ensure regulatory predictability and enable the orderly extension of the scope of this directive to new vehicle groups.
Speaker 21
As the shadows have mentioned, the deletion of the trailer section was confirmed in the draft report, and we have also noted the rejection of the pilot project that was intended to propose a study on this technical application of the trailer toll modulations. We remain open to assess further in the future the feasibility of the technological options to digitally apply toll rates based on the trailer characteristics, of course, without prejudice on the commission's right of initiative. As regards range extenders that were also mentioned in the debate, we do not object to greater discounts for low emission vehicles, towards the so called technological neutrality, including range extended electric vehicles. What we would like to flag here is that this allocation has to be based on the vector certification tool for CO2 emissions to ensure the fairness of attribution of reduced toll rates to such vehicles that benefit from the technology of range extension. Thank you very much.
Thank.
Speaker 9
you. Thank you, colleagues, for your comments. And as I said, I would support in political terms the inclusion of the trailers and semi-trailers. The problem, either, is a technical one, as some colleagues have also said. And I have a concern here that I'll tell you about, and it concerns a technical aspect.
And maybe there will still be opposition in the council on that. And it's a provision then that could just not be used. So you have the administrative work that could emerge if you're looking at classifications. And so that is one of the concerns that I've come across while I've been working on this. And I am open to talking to you, to Mr.
Ferber and two other colleagues who have made some proposals, expressed their concerns and also to discussing the amendments that you mentioned. So I'm still open for discussion. And I'd like to thank you all for the work that you've done and the work that we've done here this morning. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much. Thank you all. Now let's move on to our last item of the agenda for the morning session, which is the Tran Opinion to Itre on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing the European Competitiveness Fund, the ECF, including the specific program for defense research and innovation activities. Our rapporteur for the opinion is mister sen Sergio Gonzalez from the SND. I would like to remind you, dear colleagues, that the deadline for tabling amendments has been set for 20 March at twelve.
Speaker 1
Mister Gonzalez, please, you have the floor for 3 minutes to present your draft opinion. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Chair, for the floor. In my draft opinion, I stress the importance that European competitiveness funds and its clear and clean transition industrial decarbonization window in particular can have in ensuring the decarbonization of the US transport sector in a forward-looking and inclusive manner that leaves no one and no region behind. There are several horizontal aspects that I seek to reinforce. First, I seek to strengthen the role of the European Parliament in the governance of these funds. Second, I aim to reinforce the role of the regions and local authorities.
And third, we should ensure coordination and coherence between the ECF and other funding instruments relevant for transport, notably the Connecting Europe Facility and the national and regional partnership plans. When it comes to more transport specific elements, I have proposed, first of all, to have a closed list in article 33 of activities that can be funded under the clean transition and industrial decarbonization window. To me, the ECF is about establishing strategic priorities of what to finance in the next MFF, and this objective is less suited with an open list. Moreover, the final decision on whether to have a closed or open list will be up to the main committee responsible for this file, ITRE. It will nevertheless force us as the trend committee to be specific and thorough in our analysis of activities that we believe should be funded under this window, which will be valuable information for the main committee.
In line with this thinking, I have already proposed changes to this list, for example, by adding battery technologies and public transport ecosystems as aspects that may be funded under the ECF. When it comes to the latter, I believe that we should see and start valuing public transport as a key enabler of mobility, and therefore of European competitiveness, and ensure that this fund can provide investments for the development of multimodal hubs, fleet greening, automated mobility, and autonomous driving technologies. In short, the entire public sector ecosystem. Moreover, the ECF is about supporting and scaling innovative projects that will enhance the EU's competitiveness, so it should have a forward-looking approach when it comes to choosing the technologies and the sectors that clearly support EU's competitiveness. Therefore, my focus will also be on renewable energy, batteries, zero-emission mobility in roads and rail, as well as the integration of automotive mobility in public transport systems.
I've also proposed making it mandatory for the commission to establish in the award procedures, work programs, and investment get guidelines and EU preference, while leaving it to the commission to define the exact eligibility conditions. I believe that in the current geopolitical as well as economic climate, this is the best way to make sure that we strengthen our strategic autonomy, as well as ensure that EU money benefits EU companies and member states' economies. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much. Now we start with the shadows. For the time being, Nicolina Berniak is not here, so I will start with Mr. Heide.
Thank you, madam. Dear colleagues.
Speaker 1
Please. I didn't know mister Larraz will speak on behalf of Nicolina Verniak. Thank you very much.
Borja Giménez Larraz
much. Yes. Thank you, chair. I'm gonna speak on behalf of Miss Brenna. It has not been possible for her to be here, and she wants to apologize for it.
So first of all, I would like to thank Rapporteur for presenting the draft opinion. For me, I want to ensure that the competitiveness fund truly strengthens Europe's industrial base, strategic autonomy and long-term competitiveness, while also supporting key transport sectors that are essential for the functioning of the internal market and the European Union economy. Our approach is to ensure that transport is properly reflected across the different windows of the fund, notably the clean transition window, the digital window, and the defense window. In the clean transition window, we see a strong potential for the ECF to support the development of extra day transport infrastructure, including TNT projects as well as investment in high speed rail connections and the modernization of ports. The fund should also support the scale-up of alternative fuels for aviation and maritime transport and accelerate the deployment of alternative fuels transport.
In the digital window, I will focus on accelerating the digitalization of transport systems in order to improve efficiency, safety, and resilience. And in the defense window, I believe ECF should also support dual-use transport capabilities that strengthen both civilian and military mobility. This includes support for dual-use drones, infrastructure, and fuels for aviation, as well as the protection and resilience of critical transport infrastructure. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Very well. Thank you very much, madam chair, for giving me the floor. And dear colleagues, let me thank the rapporteur for his work. I expressly support his opinion that having a capable infrastructure is really the backbone of a transport sector, and that this should be connected to the competitive fund. This will help the regions.
Speaker 32
It'll help the member states. It'll help the economy. However, what doesn't help our economy is billions investing in high speed rail. We first need a well-functioning Tantene net that works. And by the way, flying is not only less expensive, but if you look at the entire life cycle and if you look at building infrastructure, sometimes flying is even more friendly for the environment.
Now here are the points I don't agree with, Mr. I do not agree with you that we should be using the same intensity with the Green Deal and decarbonization, and I don't believe that we should be connecting the Green Deal with prosperity. This Green Deal is the reason we have to talk about the competitiveness of Europe. This is why we are losing jobs, losing investment. So either Green Deal or prosperity.
Speaker 31
You can't have both at the same time. Either we have industry and prosperity, or we turn Europe into an industrial desert, and we have to have every this only serves interests in China and the United States. So I hope during the course of the negotiation, we come to a reasonable agreement on these economic points. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Thank you, madam chair. And I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the work that he's done. I'll start by saying that I hope that we'll have these negotiations and a compromise. We should not move the focus of the report too much to a more abstract debate about these technologies. As already said in the previous debate, the benefit of this technological neutrality needs to be the key pillar of this transition, and that isn't what has happened over the past few years now.
We're paying the price for it when it comes to the strategic autonomy that we have and our independence from China. And we don't want to keep making the same mistake here. So we should be focusing less on the technology here, and we should focus more on our infrastructure capacity, because without that, we will not be able to have the transition. Today, Europe needs to strengthen these TEN-T corridors and improve the logistics platforms and the ports, because that is where our competitiveness lies. And to do that, we need to work on one clear principle here.
Infrastructure must facilitate the transition. It shouldn't follow it. The same applies to the value chains as well. We need to have the capacity to move goods and people in an efficient way. That's safe, and that's continuous.
And that is the context, team. So the technological neutrality is not just an ideology. No, it's something that we need. We need to have an open framework for these companies. We can't have a closed framework.
And anything about the port and maritime emissions as well. And we need to make sure that there is safety and security in the ports to make sure that this can guarantee the goods. In the Tran Committee, we can't forget the urban aspect of transport. We need to have the security of these public transport systems, and that means you need to have the integrated systems. We also need to think about tourism here.
Tourism needs to be supported through mobility, accessibility as well. We need to support practical information. We need to look at innovation in connected mobility and satellite, and so on. There are risks here. They're quite obvious.
We need to talk about the transition. And if we don't create the conditions for it to work, if we want to improve competitiveness, what we need to start with is. We need to think about the infrastructure, and need to think about having an open approach that is looking at these technological options.
Valérie Devaux
Thank you very much, chair, colleagues. I would like to thank mister Gonzales for his draft report. Our transport infrastructure is really at the heart of European competitiveness. It is absolutely key to the good functioning of the single market and to strengthening our sovereignty. A large part of the transport network is aging and needs huge long-term investment in order to modernize it, to keep it up to date, and to maintain it.
So this is a real, really positive option such as the connectivity mechanism. This fund will have to support key aspects of our transport network, so particularly digital technologies that are relevant, such as the RTMS, which is very important to improve rail competitiveness, also modernizing air traffic with increased support to CESA, and also improving the EU's leadership in the aviation sector. The European preference principle is also important in the transport and defense industries to make sure that investments are promoting the European industry and also the strategic autonomy of the EU. The European Competitiveness Fund needs to strengthen military mobility in the EU by developing new technological solutions to improve our sovereignty and better coordinate transport flows, particularly when it comes to military mobility across the EU. Thank you very much.
No. I'm stepping in.
Lena Schilling
Thank you, madam chair, and thank you also for your report, Mr. Gonsalves. We read it with a lot of excitement, and I think this is also a good opportunity to work together. We support the overall vision of the European Competitiveness Fund. It brings together industrial policy, research and innovation, skills, and infrastructure in a single framework.
But there's one thing, the financial envelope is clearly insufficient for ambition. With this size of budget, we risk creating expectations we cannot deliver on, especially in the sectors that most urgently need investments. If the ECF is to be a genuine driver of the clean transition and industrial decarbonization, it must be treated as an absolute priority. In particular, transport is still one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize, nothing new to someone in this committee. We need a change in investment in rail, public transport, active mobility, and zero emission logistics, not marginal top ups.
Without a significantly higher share of funding for clean transport solutions, we cannot credibly claim that this fund will help us to meet our 2030, 2040, or 2050 climate targets. Serious investments in decarbonization mean we cannot use this fund to prolong the life of high carbon polluting energy sources. Support under the clean transition must be strictly aligned with the EU's climate goals and the do not significant harm principle, no backdoor subsidies for fossil fuels, no lock-in of carbon invest infrastructure. Every euro from the ECF should be measured against its contribution to emissions reduction, energy efficiency, and the development of renewables. Investment under the ECF cannot be concentrated only in the strongest regions and sectors.
If we do that, we will deepen territorial divides and lose support for this transition. We need place-based innovation and deployment ecosystems in less developed, rural, remote, and outmost regions with strong links to local authorities, SMEs, and universities. A just clean transition must create new opportunities and quality jobs in all territories, not just in a few industrial hubs.
Speaker 20
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, dear colleagues. Thanks also to our aperture Sergio Consalves for the draft opinion. Some notes establishing the European Competitiveness Fund should prioritize strategic resilience, dual use innovations, and rapid capability deployment, and a dedicated program for defense research and innovations must be closely aligned with lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, where gaps in logistics, interoperability, and frontline medical support, for example, have been clearly exposed. First, a big issue is the medical equipment and battlefield care system require urgent modernization. The conflict has shown that fragmented standards, insufficient stockpiles, and limited interoperability between national systems can delay life-saving treatment.
The funds should support scalable interoperable medical technologies, including modular field hospitals, telemedicine solutions, and standard side equipment usable across member states. And these are commonly used by transport industry vehicles or in the transport system. Second, interoperability is critical for military mobility and civilian resilience. Rail transport remains a key bottleneck, particularly at borders where differing track coaches disrupt rapid movement. Investment in advanced coach changing systems developed in cooperation with countries operating multiple rail standards would significantly improve cross border logistics. This is especially relevant for regions where dual course compatibility could enhance both defense readiness and economic connectivity.
And finally, the Fund should emphasize innovation ecosystem that integrate SMEs, defense industries and research institutions by accelerating procurement cycles and supporting pilot deployment in real world conditions, Europe can reduce dependency, strengthen supply chains and ensure the innovations translates into operational capability. In sum, the funds should not only boost competitiveness but also embed security, interoperability, and adaptability at its core. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Thank you, madam chair, and thank you to Mr. Gonzales for his proposal. The ECF is an ambitious project because it aims to support sectors critical to EU competitiveness, simplify procedures, and coordinate funding. I support the rapporteur's idea to link the ECF better to cohesion and to the CEF. I also welcome that the repertoire puts a lot of weight on local innovations and regional decision-making.
We need a better infrastructure everywhere, and not only in metropolitan areas. However, I noticed that the proposal is still very much focused on decarbonization and climate action. And it should be obvious by now that by making it harder and more expensive for our industry to operate in Europe, we are not helping them. On the contrary, we make Europe less competitive and less attractive for investments. Instead, we should not focus on renewable energy only, but also have to include clean nuclear energy power as a source, which is used in many member states.
The report to us suggesting €30,000,000,000 more than before for CEF. Well, coming from Germany, I would like to know how this huge rise is going to be financed. I'm happy to put more money into infrastructure, but only if we make cuts elsewhere in the MFF. To sum it up, I fully support the repertoire's approach to invest heavily in infrastructure, and I'm more than happy to cooperate in order to achieve a reasonable outcome which supports our industry and the transport sector. Thank you very much.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Mr. Schnorbusch. We have another two speakers among the our colleagues. I'll give the floor first to Monsieur Calphon.
Speaker 41
Thank you very much, Sergio. Thank you to the rapporteur for your work. European industry is really trying to move forward here. And I think those that are looking at simplification, without anything else, are really not getting the message about decarbonization. Now this fund is a first step for the rearmament in Europe.
There is investment in the green transition, digital, and European preference when it comes to financing. I completely support Mr. Gonsalves, our rapporteur, to help implement this proposal and help to get more electric vehicles. We need to increase this significantly in the future. It's quite expensive to achieve this green transition in cities, and it's been said by a number of colleagues, rail is actually the most decarbonized form of transport.
We need to strengthen military mobility. We need massive investment here and greater resilience in our transport systems, again with European preference. This is just the beginning of our fight, but we really need politicians to become more aware of this issue of military mobility, and we won't be able to achieve the Green Deal otherwise. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Thank you. I will speak in Slovak. Very open.
In what we observe in Europe, we see all the universal solutions. We have a catastrophic migration policy. We set up a new fund. We are facing poverty, and we are setting up a new fund to help all the poor. This is not the way to carry on.
We will end up in an economic disaster. Now we have the outcome of all the green and migration policies. And as a result, Europe is falling behind Chinese and American companies. They go away from Europe and fire people. Now you want to set up a new fund to bring in more taxpayer money.
Speaker 40
This is not going to work. We need to address the root causes of why we're falling behind in competition. We need to reduce fuel and energy prices. We need to help people do business without excessive regulation. We shouldn't be introducing emission allowances for households.
Only then will our companies be competitive, and only then will we not require any more excessive funds, and people will be able to breathe freely.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much. Now from the European Commission, Missus Atiana Lopez Garido, you have the floor, madam, for
Speaker 42
Thank you. I would like to start by thanking the trunk committee and especially, of course, the rapporteur and the for the draft opinion and also the shadow rapporteurs. The commission has examined carefully the draft opinion and has taken note of the interventions today from the rapporteur and the honorable members. We fully appreciate the Chan committee's efforts to strengthen the text and ensure that the European Competitiveness Fund becomes a strategic forward-looking instrument that supports the decarbonization of the US transport sector as well as its long-term resilience and prosperity. Let me just clarify some elements.
Speaker 43
So the ECF will be implemented in synergy with other relevant programs under the MFF. In particular, the Connecting Europe Facility, the famous CEF, which plays a key role for investment in intent infrastructure both for civilian and military mobility dual use. As you know, CEF provides support via grants to investment projects in the field of transport and mobility. Mobility. The ACF investee instrument, which is included in the European Competitiveness Fund and is a successor to the current investee program, will support finance and guarantees for the TNT network similar to what has already been done under the current MFF.
Speaker 42
A good example of synergies under the current MFF is the funding of the Lisbon Porto high-speed line, which blended CEF grants with an EAV loan backed by the investee guarantee. As regards inclusivity aspects, the ECF will cover the full investment journey from research to manufacturing of companies across the whole single market, across member states and regions. Furthermore, please just call your attention to the fact that among its objectives in article three, the ACF proposal specifically includes ensuring a just transition to a sustainable, decarbonized, and digital economy that is fair and supports workers and communities. As regards the scope of technologies covered under the ACF, the fund will promote industrial decarbonization in a technology-neutral manner, ensuring that all technologies contributing to the union's climate and competitiveness objectives can be supported. As regards advisory aspects, the ACF will be advised by a strategic stakeholder board composed of high-level experts, including researchers and industry, the social partners, SMEs, investors, end users, and civil society.
Speaker 44
Experts and specialists will provide input to help the EU institutions make the best possible strategic decisions on investment priorities. The aim is that the ACF investment stays ahead of the innovation curve and targets the most important strategic technologies. Thank you very much.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Missus Carriedo. And now you have the floor, Mr. Gonzalez, for your final remarks. Thank you very much.
Speaker 25
Thank you, chair. I want to thank all the shadows, the commission, and all the members that have intervened on this topic, as I believe this was a good first discussion. I look forward to your amendments as well as to negotiating them with you in an open and collaborative manner that ensures the largest majority possible for this opinion. In this regard, I would just like to remind you that there are 10 committees giving opinions on this file. So, if we want to have an impact in the Eitra negotiations and on the final report, we will need to focus as much as possible on transport-related issues, which are of our competence in this committee.
I would ask you that you take this into consideration while drafting your amendments, and thank you all again for all your work and collaboration.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, colleagues. We now before ending our meeting for 2:30 in the afternoon, I wanted to say something. As you know, I never ask to be replaced in my duties here. It's exceptionally today, as some other, if there is a very serious problem, that's, there are no alternative and it's not flexible.
And, one, two coordinators, mister Giseke and mister Danielson will replace me. And I'm making this statement because, yes, you know, we have four vice presidents, and I want to thank publicly Miss Kircher and Mr. Sinkavicius that they are both very willing to replace, not the other two. So that is why I will be replaced this afternoon. They couldn't, of course, and that's why the two coordinators will replace me for our meeting in the afternoon. Thank you very much.
Emma?
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.