Mr President, I should like first of all to welcome Commissioner de Palacio to this House today. I look forward to working cooperatively with her. I cannot, however, let the information that I have just received about the nuclear accident in South Korea go unrecognised. I was very shocked and saddened to hear of the deaths of 22 workers, apparently as the result of a heavy water accident. That underlines what we are trying to do here today and the need for changes in energy policy and in the budget for energy policy. SAVE is the only Community-wide programme dedicated to promoting the rational use of energy. SAVE II focuses on the non-technical elements, helping to build energy efficiency infrastructure, and therefore does not pay for hardware investments. The purpose of the programme is rather to create an environment in which investments and energy efficiency will be promoted and where energy efficiency will be recognised as a market opportunity. We have heard about the difficulties of competition and renewable energy, but energy saving also saves money and, therefore, is a good investment all round. The SAVE programme was thoroughly and positively evaluated in 1994. I congratulate the Commission on the way it was run: credit where credit is due. This House gives kicks to the Commission when it sees programmes badly run. When a programme is well run and has been evaluated as such, we must also give it credit. The evaluation highlighted SAVE as a valuable policy instrument to promote energy efficiency but stressed that a clear and consistent strategy for pilot actions was required; that dissemination of results is the key to long-term success; and that long-term effectiveness requires better on-going monitoring and impact analysis. The evaluation also showed that SAVE actions will also indirectly lead to the achievement of the objectives of the non-nuclear energy R[amp]D programme through the creation of a positive environment for the dissemination and implementation of new technology in renewable energies. The amendments proposed by this report are a direct result of this evaluation. Energy efficiency means lower consumption, the conservation of non-renewable energy sources and reduced dependence on energy imports, but most of all it means lower levels of environmental pollution from harmful substances such as CO2, one of the major causes of the greenhouse effect. The European Parliament has often underlined the importance of energy-efficient actions and the Council has also emphasised the need for energy savings and a reduction in CO2 emissions in a series of resolutions. However, these announcements have been followed up by very modest proposals. The energy savings targets will, in all likelihood, not be achieved by the means foreseen in the SAVE II programme. As the Community has so far not been able to agree on what is probably the most effective instrument for the reduction of greenhouse gases – namely, the taxation of energy consumption – the Commission and the Council regard the SAVE II programme as “an important and necessary instrument”. Why then make cuts in an already low budget? That is why I have restored the budget figures originally proposed by the Commission which were fully justified. Bearing in mind the expected increase in the energy CO2 emissions and the low budget allocated to SAVE II it is rather unlikely that the internationally agreed objectives for reducing emissions could be achieved by this programme. However, under the energy framework programme SAVE II offers an opportunity to reverse a trend. Since at Member State level progress has stagnated, the responsibility for achieving energy efficiency targets and meeting reduction commitments now lies with the Community. The Finnish presidency has therefore announced an action plan for energy efficiency during the second half of 1999. It is very welcome and important. The Commission argues in favour of setting a Community energy efficiency target. Given the approximately 1% annual improvement in energy efficiency in final consumption achieved so far, the Commission calls for a target of reducing energy intensity in final demand by a further percentage point per year. Given our commitments, as already underlined, it is incomprehensible that the Commission could confine itself to such a target. A goal of a further one-and-a-half percentage points should be set in order to develop additional savings potential. As you know, Parliament agreed this at first reading. I should just like to add two technical points. We have, on legal advice, improved the comitology amendments. Therefore we have replaced Amendment No 5 by a new Amendment No 13, and Amendment No 11 by a new Amendment No 12. This was on legal advice to improve the original amendments. I hope that will be acceptable to everyone.

Political group: Verts-ALE