As rapporteur for the Intelligent Energy for Europe Programme, I would like to thank all three institutions for their cooperation in enabling us to reach successfully a second reading: the European Commission, of course, for coming forward with the proposals, the Council of Ministers and the three presidencies involved in this - the Spanish, Danish and above all the Greek presidencies - and especially the Members of the European Parliament and the staff of the European Parliament. I am pleased we have been able to find a compromise at second reading between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers by working very quickly and in fact by foregoing the normal full procedure for codecision matters. This is frankly not the best way to work, and I am sorry that the Council of Ministers is beginning to expect accelerated procedures as the norm. They are less transparent and less democratic and often lead to temporary misunderstandings, especially when negotiations are conducted – as they inevitably are – in only one language. The title of this programme is self-explanatory. We need only imagine the contents of a programme called 'stupid' energy. In such a programme we would use fossil fuels, which we know to be finite and which emit CO2, as quickly as possible and would burn them just as inefficiently and profligately, in a way which the United States could teach us. 'Stupid' energy would use electricity and gas to heat the air outside buildings rather than insulating the buildings. It would encourage us to drive more and larger cars at high speeds so that we use more fossil fuels, preferably with only one occupant in each car. Despite its high economic costs, its failure to deal with radioactive waste and the need for very high safety and security standards, 'stupid' energy would insist on the promulgation of nuclear power, even in countries at very high risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Enough about 'stupid' energy. We currently do some of those things, which makes the current programme even more topical and even more useful. It is actually a modest programme, with EUR 200 million allocated for four years, which is frankly still inadequate. I hope that further funding will be made available during the programme, in particular when new Member States join. The programme has four objectives, all of which are indeed intelligent: the promotion of renewable energy sources, of energy efficiency, of clean transport and of all these three things in developing countries. All four objectives are important and I congratulate the European Commission on its intention to establish coordinating measures. I look forward to hearing the Commissioner's declaration, which is a declaration that I made clear was essential if we were to find agreement. Parliament's amendments to the Council of Ministers' common position encompass the budget – we insisted on an increase to EUR 200 million with a review clause – and numerous clarifications. I am pleased to say that 22 of Parliament's amendments were accepted in the common position and others have been accepted in subsequent negotiations. There is an unfortunate omission as regards the need for a strategic agency in the field of energy. Parliament will pursue that idea in other ways. The Commission has done well to come forward with this programme. Its measures will help with protection of the environment, security of supply and with our industrial competitiveness. It will complement efforts by Member States and will encourage the laggardly Member States to do more. I will not name them to spare people's blushes. I am particularly pleased that the COOPENER Programme, which is itself modest, will serve as leverage for much better-funded programmes such as those foreseen in Johannesburg. Over 2 billion people in the world have no access to electricity. This programme will help. One worrying aspect is the difficulty the Commission apparently has with the lead times for its proposals. These proposals were published so late that it is not going to be possible to commit money to projects until February 2004. I hope that the Commissioner will undertake a review of the timescale for preparing legislation to prevent problems of this sort, which I am sure are as disappointing to her as they are to us. Nevertheless, the Intelligent Energy for Europe Programme will be of very real value and I look forward to its adoption following the Commissioner's declaration, and to a vote tomorrow which I hope will be very well supported by a European Parliament that will follow the programme with great interest. IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM I NAVALVice-President

Political group: PSE