Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, this is a matter for the whole of the European Union, although the majority of speakers on the list are Italian or Austrian. In any case, before I go any further, I would like to say that, as a mountain-dweller, I fully understand the Austrians’ concerns. Furthermore, the situation of Austria and the Alpine question as a whole have come about as a direct result of a transport policy which needs to be completely overhauled, as is clearly indicated in the White Paper which, by pure coincidence, we are going to discuss this very afternoon. There are two requirements: on the one hand, free movement of goods and the single market, and, on the other, environmental protection, road safety and public health – basically, what is meant by the catchphrase ‘sustainable development’. What should our strategy for transport be? Fewer lorries, more trains, a shift away from the transport monoculture, more intermodal transport, fewer roads and road tunnels and more rail tunnels, an overall rebalancing of the situation with due regard for freedom of the market but also taking into account the need for guiding parameters, including clear information on the real costs of transport, and consistent pricing, the freeing-up of resources for rail investments, the development of a European structure for the rail networks through the railways packages, safety guarantees provided by the relevant directive on tunnels and by common rules to make road transport safer; lastly, a growing effort to introduce less-pollutant transport systems, and also, I would say, to finish with, the use of systems such as the satellite system, Galileo, to track fleets of lorries. The Austrian question relates to the Alps but the situation is similar in other mountain ranges such as the Pyrenees too. We are faced with a boom in freight transport, which will expand even further with enlargement. In the past, Austria used this ecopoints system – which was soon to be abandoned – and, after Laeken, the European Council remained strangely undecided until the very end of last year, when a solution was found that was described in committee as a virtual solution, meaning that, in actual fact, the figures were theoretical. That is why a broad majority of the European Parliament, in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, decided on a plan of action, starting from the assumption that we need to work towards a legal basis consisting, first and foremost, of the Alpine Convention transport protocol, which appears to be the only instrument which would compel the European Union to regulate the flow of lorry traffic in the Alpine region as well. There is a need for a new policy based on the Swiss model. The committee of which I am Chairman has made every endeavour to find a balanced solution. We have consulted the Ministers. We have even had the date for the construction of the Brenner Base Tunnel brought forward definitively from 2021 to 2012. Above all, through the amendments we are tabling before the House, we have endeavoured to find a solution which gets away from the ecopoints system, in any case to find a solution for the period stretching from now until 2006 based on the need, as I said, to take into consideration the provisions of the Alpine Convention and, I would say, more generally, the sensitive areas of the Alps. It is not by chance that Amendment No 15 refers to other areas such as Fréjus in the Alps to the north-west of Italy, to the Mont Blanc region and to the Austrian Alps, in other words to the whole of the Alps, for I believe that this is the overall picture which we must consider. Particularly in Article 13, we have taken great care to achieve the phasing out of heavy goods vehicles, introducing a quota system for 2004, 2005 and 2006, which in 2005 – 2006 will lead to a ban on EURO 0 and EURO 1 lorries, a quota system for EURO 2 lorries and free transit for EURO 3 lorries. Lastly, as regards the amendments, I feel that the Swoboda and Simpson amendments cannot be accepted in that they considerably alter the proposal endorsed by the majority of the committee and that the Rack amendment cannot be accepted because it too completely changes the parameters. I can accept Amendment No 19 tabled by the , which calls for further debate. Lastly, I feel we must reject Amendments Nos 20 and 21 because they too change the proposal completely. I will end, Mr President, by saying that, as Committee Chairman and rapporteur, it was my duty to find a balance. As a mountain-dweller, I might have preferred to go further, but I felt it was right for Parliament to be able to see the current state of the debate.

Political group: ELDR