Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the Commissioner has said, the proposal before us today is a proposal concerning the reduction of organic solvents in paints, and it is a proposal which is part of a wider environmental strategy, namely the attempt to comply with national emission ceilings, in this case VOC emission ceilings. The proposal can therefore be considered to be one of the measures necessary for the global improvement of the quality of the air which we, ourselves, breathe, and we cannot fail to give this measure our full support. Precisely because we believe firmly in this goal which – as the Commissioner pointed out – has been brought so tragically to our attention this summer, we know that it is in our interest and in the interest of future generations to ensure effective environmental protection. For these reasons, I have taken a very simple line on this report right from the beginning of the legislative process: the achievement of the goal of this directive is closely linked to guaranteeing the quality of the products covered by the directive, in other words paints. The logic is, indeed, very simple. There is a threshold below which the quality of the products available on the market will inevitably fall and, if the quality – not forgetting that, more often than not, these are paints which are used as protective films, particularly against atmospheric agents – drops below an acceptable threshold, the effect will be the opposite to that which we desire. In the medium- and long-terms, there would, indeed, be an increase in the applications of the paint necessary and, therefore, inevitably, an increase in emissions. I have therefore attempted to strike a balance between what it is possible to do technically, without going too far below an acceptable level of quality, and what needs to be done, for precisely the reasons just mentioned. I will now briefly review the key points of the directive. As regards the objective of the directive as such, there were different reactions from the Members, particularly in respect of workers’ health and certain national laws protecting workers. Just this evening, the Commission explained that the goal of the directive is to protect the environment, and to do so without prejudicing or affecting existing measures taken at Community or national level to protect the health of workers, as, moreover, is stated in recital 14. Some of the Members have retabled amendments to this effect in plenary but, after the Commission’s comments, I reiterate that we must reject this proposal for expansion and vote against the amendments, in particular Amendments Nos 2, 10, 16, 49, 54, 80 and 82. However, I support Amendment No 84, which helps us to define and specify the purpose of the directive more clearly. In addition, there is an issue of labelling. Personally, I support the Commission’s proposal to entrust the labelling requirements for the products in question to a committee, first and foremost because, in the light of the manifold efforts on the part of industry to provide consumers with clear information, the committee can benefit from looking at existing best practice. I do not feel it would be appropriate to lay down further requirements, and that is why I call upon the House to vote against Amendment No 20. With regard to what is known as the substitution approach, set out in Amendment No 23, I do not believe it is applicable in this context, for the companies and the industrial system we are addressing need facts and certainties – which we are providing in this directive – precisely in order to be able to invest in research and develop the formulas necessary to achieve the objectives. Then there are many amendments relating to the thresholds, in other words the percentages proposed by the Commission and changed by Parliament in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I will not go into them all. These are proposals which take us below the acceptable threshold I mentioned just now and must, therefore, be rejected. Lastly, I would like to mention other points relating to minor derogations for vehicles and historic buildings, monuments and such like, which the Commission has accepted and which I call upon the House to adopt, and a few amendments relating to the definition of solvents and their boiling points, which I believe are going to be covered in this evening’s debate too. I would like to end by thanking all my colleagues for their extremely valuable contributions in committee.

Political group: PPE-DE