Mr President, thank you so much for giving me the floor. I am delighted that so many MEPs are attending today’s debate on an issue of such importance. I understand that a large number of British MEPs had a meeting in the bar and discussed how they could prevent me from speaking. That plan did not work. But I would like to take this opportunity also to thank my Spanish fellow MEPs: I cannot fault their behaviour which is entirely in tune with the Rules of Procedure, for although we do not see eye to eye in terms of content, they still made the effort to be here. All credit to the Spanish. As for my British counterparts, I can no longer show them any respect because they surreptitiously tried to cancel all debates this evening within my own group. Mr President, we have been working on this directive since as early as the autumn of 1998. On the basis of that directive, we will adapt the rules on emissions of pollutants from large combustion plants. Despite all opposition on the part of a number of Member States and despite all warnings and protests from some interested parties in the electricity sector, my instinct tells me that we can amend the original regulation without any problems. The technical facilities are already widely available and, in a large number of the EU Member States, the modified rules are already prescribed and are hence normal policy. The environmental requirements which, in a number of countries are prescribed for large furnaces, are invariably stricter because the acidification of our environment is still ongoing. Add to that the issue of ozone – you will be aware of the fact that many citizens suffer from respiratory disorders, which are partly caused by nitrogen oxides originating from traffic and the sector at issue today – then surely it should be more or less a point of honour for everyone in this House to address these problems when it is possible to do so in a simple and effective manner. The original Commission proposal to amend the 1998 directive was not what you would call a runaway success: standardisation was poor and existing installations were kept outside the range of the directive. Parliament showed its best side at first reading and did what parliaments are expected to do, namely to lend substance to the care for humans, nature and the environment in general. The Council’s common position came about with the greatest difficulty. Moreover, the European Parliament’s wish to include existing installations in the directive was also taken into consideration, and legislation was tightened up to some extent. The snag – and my fellow Spanish MEPs regret this – was that each country managed to negotiate their own exceptions, and if it was up to the Court of Ministers, we would be using old and polluting power stations not updated with state-of-the-art technology ad infinitum. The common position lacked any vision whatsoever; it was a pick-and-mix with something for everyone. Alongside environmental arguments, I have also supplied evidence for the need to tighten the common position: in addition to the need to protect public health (ozone smog), I also came up with a few economic alternatives, for it is true that we would like to develop an environment industry in Europe. If we compare the Council’s emission requirements with the regulations which currently apply in the United States or Japan, we come off rather badly. Some people claim that there is no need for requirements with regard to combustion plants, for, thanks to Mrs Myller’s report, we are being given emission ceilings anyway. If we meet the expectations of those in favour of liberalising the energy market, in other words if we do not prescribe requirements, or if we allow exceptions, with regard to generating electricity using old, polluting power stations, the market mechanism will be disturbed, and those who neglect the environment will be rewarded with a headstart thanks to their cheap energy prices. That cannot be the intention of European environmental legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE