Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Lienemann has just painted a very drastic picture of how important water and air are to us, especially as the very source of life for human beings. The problem is one of both water quality and water resources, of which there is not a plentiful supply everywhere in Europe, especially in very dry regions. I am sorry that Commissioner Wallström, who is responsible in this area, cannot be here now because this is, after all, a very, very important directive on which the Commission has been working for a long time, and water protection legislation, which we are debating now at second reading, affects all the citizens of the European Union as well as all the people in countries wishing to join, who will have to comply with EU legislation once they accede. We have been working on this subject for ten years and a comprehensive approach was only made possible as the result of a hearing arranged and held by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in 1994. A great deal of work has been carried out between then and this second reading by numerous Members of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. We reduced the 243 proposed amendments in the Environment Committee to 77, but another 30 have been added. You see, there are numerous matters of concern here and they are all very different. Some want tighter legislation, some want more clarification, others want to serve national interests. Even within my group, the Group of the European People’s Party , there were, of course, differences of opinion. Our line is to work towards realistic objectives and practicable solutions. In this sense, the proposed amendments tabled by me and other members on behalf of the group represent an improvement on the demands set out in the common position. Some proposed amendments which we support should strengthen the European Parliament’s negotiating position in the forthcoming conciliation with the Council of Ministers. We obviously reject all unrealistic demands which affect the European Parliament’s credibility. For me, that includes the zero demand, i.e. the demand for zero inputs up to 2020. That would sound the death knell for every agricultural and many industrial undertakings. I should like to stress quite particularly here that we have already made considerable progress under current national and European water protection laws, however imperfect they are and however little they are complied with in the Member States. I only need to remind you that we again have salmon in the Rhine, which would have been unthinkable 20 years ago and that salmon are due to be released this spring in the Elbe, which was particularly polluted. That does not mean that we do not still have huge efforts to make in order to improve water protection yet further and maintain the quality of water and ground water and this will doubtless cost a great deal of money. Farmers have voiced a number of concerns over the past few days. You can only farm if you have an adequate supply of clean water. The line followed by our group for the negotiations with the Council of Ministers will allow an acceptable solution to be found for farmers too. I am horrified that both Members of Parliament and the public have been misled by false arguments in this difficult and sometimes highly technical matter. I therefore extend my special thanks to my colleagues in the group who helped us find compromises. I also extend my special thanks to our rapporteur, Mrs Lienemann, for all her work and her cooperative attitude, even if we have agreed to differ on certain points. And I also thank the representatives of the European Commission, who stood by with advice and expert help at all times. If the representatives of the Council of Ministers take an equally constructive approach, then I have no doubt that together we shall find an even better solution to the problem of water protection in Europe under the conciliation procedure.

Political group: PPE-DE