Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament has basically been in agreement on this question since 1996. It was Parliament, may I remind you, which had to push the previous Commission in the direction of this policy. It did not start with the White Paper, but with an initiative by Parliament, and I remember because I was the rapporteur at the time. We need a much higher proportion of primary energy used. We have already come a long way, but not far enough by a long chalk. We need it for climatic reasons and for industrial policy reasons, because there is a global market to fill here. In this respect, I should like to thank the rapporteur on behalf of the committee and note that, consequently, 80% of the resolutions tabled are therefore uncontested. For the rest, an aside: everyone still here this evening must have not renewable sources of energy but an inexhaustible supply of energy! We are represented in accordance with the subject matter! Unfortunately, I note that the report contains a number of statements which are incorrect, which violate the Treaty or which are politically untenable. For example, elevating the feed-in system to a universal panacea is wrong. It is true, of course, that the countries with feed-in systems have made a great deal of progress, but that is not on account of the feed-in system but because of the financing which is in place there. We must make a distinction between these causes. As a result, we and the Commission are of the opinion that the Member States should now be allowed to experiment. It is too early to see one system as a universal panacea and dismiss another. Secondly, the report also contradicts the Treaty at certain points. This applies in particular to the statements on aid policy. It is true that renewable energy needs aid now, and probably will for some time to come, in order to get started. That is quite right and it complies with the Treaty. But it is certainly not right to give them the same aid as all other forms of energy because they make a totally different contribution to the energy mix, and it is not right to link aid for one to the lifetime of the others. My third comment also concerns a point at which the resolution does not comply with the Treaty. We here in the European Union cannot impose mandatory obligations on the Member States. The European Union has no legal basis and no credentials for doing so and, because of that, it cannot impose sanctions. Anyway, that is precisely what the Lisbon Council has just agreed to reject in connection with the job markets. That is why it is right to regard this as a matter of economic policy of common interest; hence the burden sharing negotiations. More importantly, I cannot agree when there is talk of the curse of the lowest bidder. Statements like this show disdain for the consumer and disregard the principle of supply and demand. In addition, as I am sure you will understand, we cannot get excited about new forms of bureaucracy, even if it comes along in the jewel-studded cloak of an EU agency. That is why, Madam Vice-President, I have three recommendations to make to the Commission. First: you should use your directive, the draft of which we are waiting for, to promote the use of all renewable sources of energy and, if possible, you could suggest a uniform development framework. Secondly: as far as financial assistance is concerned, a distinction should be made between everyone and those who need this financial assistance. The distinction is easy to make. Thirdly, and I consider this extremely important in the interests of investors: if a new system should replace the systems currently being tried out in Europe, either in the Member States or in the Union, it should not, of course, penalise those who have already made investments. They need permanent protection. We want both the competition and energy departments of the Commission to make a clear statement on that to the markets.

Political group: PPE-DE