Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is a directive which has involved complicated, extensive and heated debates within the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy in particular. We have tried to stress that cogeneration is not an end in itself but an energy efficiency measure and that this proposal, which pursues the Commission's strategy of increasing energy efficiency in the European Union, was well received but at the same time presented a series of problems, as the rapporteur, Mr Glante, pointed out at the outset. Then, by means of close dialogue and debate between various members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, we presented a balanced proposal which was genuinely significant from the point of view of energy savings. As I said before, cogeneration based on heat demand will therefore allow us to optimise the situation in terms of greenhouse gases and balance the functioning of the electrical system. However, this whole building could have fallen down upon us if we had promoted an unnecessary demand for heat. Too simplistic an approach – such as the one I believe was proposed initially – would have led us to promote the construction of cogeneration plants without there being any real heat demand. And this would have been contrary to what we believed the objective of this proposal to be. I would like to congratulate Mr Glante and everybody who has participated in the various meetings which have taken place on this issue, because it was not an easy issue to understand. They include my colleague, Mr Vidal-Quadras, who has worked courageously on this directive. We have been through numbers, formulae, variables and subscripts and I believe we have finally managed to bring our points of view closer together. The compromise amendments represent good progress in terms of reaching a final agreement and it is significant that the existence of different technologies throughout the length and breadth of the European Union has been recognised. It is the case that the more heat a plant produces, the greater the global efficiency of the cogeneration process. But to reduce the whole directive to this statement is simplistic and unrealistic. A plant for the exclusive production of heat with an efficiency of 80% is entirely inefficient – I would even go as far as to say obsolete – but a plant for the production of electricity with an efficiency of 50% may be very efficient. And why is all of this the case? For the simple reason that electricity is a more elaborate form of energy which is obtained from heat. Once it is made clear that the global efficiency of the plant is not an appropriate or absolute parameter for determining the value of cogeneration, what are we left with? We are left – as I believe Mr Vidal-Quadras will also point out – with primary energy savings and consequently gas emissions savings. This is the most appropriate parameter for measuring the benefits derived from cogeneration, when compared to the separate production of heat and electricity. We must not forget an important point: that cogeneration has been developed in the different Member States according to cultural traditions. In the countries of the Centre and the North of Europe heat for municipal uses predominates, and it is obvious that heating and hot water needs are enormous during much of the year; in other latitudes a form of cogeneration in which the proportion of heat is lower has developed for obvious reasons, and therefore electricity for industrial uses predominates. The remainder is sold on the network. Mr Glante has been able to see that this proposal required a profound analysis before reaching definitive conclusions. However, as draftsman for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I must say that this was not the case in this committee and that the opinion it approved, in the light of what is being proposed today, following the debates and meetings which have taken place, lacks realism and rigour. The complexity of this issue was demonstrated a moment ago and I, as rapporteur supported by my group, requested a more flexible timetable. In other words, I asked that this proposal be debated seriously and that there might be more time to compare our differing opinions with the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. This request was denied and the proposal was voted on in a hurried fashion with the result that I am now describing. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that, amongst all of us, we must try to prevent situations such as this. An opinion cannot be drawn up in the way it has been drawn up in the case of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on cogeneration, which I fear is not an isolated case since it happens relatively often in Parliament. Finally, I believe we have produced a rigorous, proportionate and necessary proposal. I would therefore congratulate the rapporteur once again, and my colleagues in the Industry Committee, on their excellent work, and particularly on not accepting the first proposal and fighting to reach agreements on a proposal which satisfies everybody. Congratulations, Commissioner.

Political group: PPE-DE