Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, even the title of this directive indicates that this topic is a relatively complex one. I just want to try and do something I have done in the past, which is to explain what this is in very simple terms and for the benefit of those not involved in these matters. What we are talking about is the production, by the traditional means of steam, of electricity, which is then supplied for efficient use in industry or for heating. The promotion of this technology can be seen as being consonant with the objectives – the Kyoto commitments – that we, and many other countries, have set ourselves. It will help to save energy, to use it efficiently, and to reduce emissions of CO2. Implementing this technology can also make supplies more secure. My primary concern, when engaging in these discussions, when voting, and when tabling amendments, has been to shape a directive that will be applicable throughout Europe, at the same level, and with the same ground rules. This consideration applies in particular to the reference values to be used to define energy savings. We call upon the Commission to draw up, within an appropriate timeframe, a package of European reference values to facilitate comparisons of implementation in the various Member States. I saw it as important that there should be greater legal certainty within the European Union, and that the Member States should, on the basis of this directive – assuming that it enters into force after second reading and, perhaps, after a conciliation procedure – have legal certainty and be able to promote this technology. The report is a highly technical one, and discussing it was a relatively complicated business. Our discussions were lively, but also very fair, and we were very fair-minded in our dealings with each other. There was no confrontation between and Right of the sort I have previously described, but rather a confrontation between North and South, each being convinced that one method or another was better. I believe that the compromise we have reached is a sound one. All of us – myself included – have had to moderate our demands to some extent. I was not happy with all the compromises, but I accepted them as being what this is all about. At the end of the day, this result, at least in the committee, where there were 32 votes in favour, none against, and 11 abstentions – let me mention at this point that I am to this day unsure how the 11 abstentions came about – has shown that we have come to a sensible compromise. Including those in my report, we started out with 240 amendments. Tomorrow, there will be 11 amendments on the table for us to vote on. I think that is a very fine achievement. We have done good work, and I can tell you that one or other of the eleven amendments will not get my vote, but, on the whole, what comes out of first reading stage will look very good. I just hope that the Council will match this by putting a proper political position on the table in May, or by June at the latest. What the Council is currently discussing differs to quite a large extent from what we have been discussing here, so the second reading is guaranteed to be, once more, exciting and highly contentious. I hope that tomorrow’s vote will go well and that we will adopt the report; then I will already be looking forward to the discussions in the course of second reading. If we all work together properly on that, and if the Council is well disposed, we will manage to get this report adopted by the end of this Parliamentary term – I think, at second reading stage or perhaps after a conciliation procedure – and then legal certainty will have been created. To that extent, I think, we have been able to improve the Commission proposal by making it more precise, specific and exact, and I hope it will meet with general approval tomorrow. (Applause)

Political group: PSE