Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the impression is constantly given that Austria is at odds with the rest of the European Union. Thank God that is not the case, Mr Jarzembowski, for, after considering the facts, you too must concede – you who know what you are talking about and cannot plead ignorance – that these rules have played a substantial part, over past years, in improving the environmental situation across the length and breadth of Europe. It was the transit arrangement with Austria that led to the HGV fleet being modernised and made more environmentally friendly and played a substantial part in this coming about. (Applause) Therefore, as has already been mentioned, this is not about standing up for pettifogging local interests. Of course, the people of the Tyrol will defend their interests, and your opposition to them, Mr Ferber – your opposition to your Tyrolean neighbours – is something that you and they will just have to sort out together. In the past, though, this rule really was used to ensure that improvements were made to the environment in our vulnerable regions – not just in the Tyrol, for there are enough vulnerable regions in Europe. This is now about finding a temporary solution until the transport infrastructure costs directive comes into being, so that we can take another step towards making Europe’s fleets of HGVs more environmentally friendly. Mr Simpson and I have therefore tabled an amendment on behalf of the Group of the ; it is identical with Amendment No 19, to which reference has already been made. Our amendment makes provision for vehicles in category 3 to be included as well, as, if they are not, there will be the perverse consequence that someone trading in his category 2 vehicle – that is to say, a really bad HGV – for one in category 3 – and this is where the study already referred to is relevant – will in practice be no better off in a category 3 vehicle than he was in one classed as category 2, and, in certain cases, even worse off. It would be a positive aspect of our decision if we, despite all the other points of criticism, could include category 3 as well. Let me reiterate that this is about nothing more or less than the question of where our priorities lie – with the environment, health, and quality of life or with the unrestricted free movement of goods. Both sides of this equation have to be considered. I am not saying that the free movement of goods does not matter. I simply think that what must surely count in the eyes of our electorate as a whole – and certainly in the eyes of those in Bavaria – is that priority should be given to health and to the environment. Let me observe, by way of winding up my speech, that there will indeed be a conciliation procedure. I am grateful to all those who have helped to make it possible for us to move swiftly on to the conciliation procedure. What now really counts is that we act quickly and work out a compromise. Although I do not want to revisit all the details of this morning’s debate right now, everything we have seen and heard, and the Italian transport minister’s almost daily statements, indicate that Italy is not at present ready to really work towards a compromise. I believe that the Italian Presidency has to recognise that it must, in these six months, act on Europe’s behalf and not just on Italy’s, and so I hope that it too will realise the great value of the environment, including the environment in Italy, and that we need a sensible temporary compromise until such time as the transport infrastructure costs directive can enter into force. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-President

Political group: PSE