Mr President, I want to begin by congratulating the President on having handled the first part of this discussion so well that we do, in fact, have an actual document to discuss. However, I also want to emphasise my disappointment at the fact that Members of this Parliament, and above all members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, are unable to accept the democratic process embarked upon three years ago and now to be brought to a conclusion, but are, at the last minute, trying to thwart this document. I also want to thank the rapporteur for the work she has done, even if I have not always understood the path she has chosen, the course she has subsequently charted and why the end result appears not to reflect the original, higher ambitions. We know that our use of fossil fuels is not a sustainable use of energy. That is something we are really all agreed on. We have known about the problem for at least 30 years, and it is now time to do something about it. I have said it before and I shall say it again: Parliament supported a strategy on acidifying air pollution three years ago. Now it is time to put this strategy into effect. That is what this directive is about. It is not only about acidifying air pollution in Sweden, Norway or Denmark. It is about half a million people who, in different places on this earth of ours, die each year because of the use of fossil fuels. It is about all those who contract chronic illnesses, for example chronic bronchitis, because of the burning of fossil fuels. It is not only, therefore, a question of tightening up limit values but, to just as great an extent, a matter of our people’s health. That is something which Members must not forget. It is in actual fact possible to retain a good level of service in the energy field and, at the same time, to work towards a better environment. We are on the right road. It is we who have the opportunity to set the pace if 314 Members have the courage to take up a definite position tomorrow in favour of the more ambitious alternative. It is scarcely surprising that the Council should have submitted a compromise in the form of a text which is a watered down version of that which Parliament approved at first reading and would have liked to have seen. It is also obvious that, at second reading, we should again put forward the same demands in order to put pressure on the Council and obtain a good negotiating position for ourselves in the inevitable conciliation, for we know that we must act now if we are to get to see any results at all within the foreseeable future. We must dare to set strict limit values for all types of plant, both old and new, large and small. The Council’s limit values are not as far-reaching. The Council appears to have lost faith in our ability to develop new technology at all. It is absolutely crucial that old plants which already exist should be covered by this directive and that they should also be subject to strict limit values. Nothing would be as intended if too many exceptions were granted. Nothing would remain of the high ambitions entertained. Small plants too must, therefore, be covered by the directive. It is also important to point out that the directive establishes a framework for that liberalisation of the energy market we are seeing today. Without such a framework, there would be total anarchy in the European energy market. Minimum environmental requirements are needed in order to create common ground rules. Those requirements we are now imposing upon ourselves in the European Union are also demands which must apply to the Union’s future members. Today and tomorrow, we have the opportunity not only to put a stop to dangerous emissions but also to improve public health and prepare the ground for a successful future enlargement of the European Union.

Political group: PSE