Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to congratulate Mrs Hautala on her great capacity for dialogue and for her work, which have allowed us to reach agreement. We entirely agree with her that it is important for citizens to have access as soon as possible to fuels with a low sulphur content. The present directive is a response to the conclusions of the Auto-Oil programmes carried out by the Commission and will allow us to enjoy better air quality, which we are pleased about. It is clear that the objective of this directive is one hundred per cent environmental and everybody therefore welcomes it. However, we must be pragmatic and analyse the circumstances. The production of new sulphur-free fuels will lead to increases in CO2 in the refineries and furthermore those refineries are going to have to make very costly investments in order to produce them. Nevertheless, thanks to technological advances in relation to vehicle engines and catalytic converters, it is possible today to achieve a positive balance in the reduction of CO2 emissions, because those coming from refineries will be less than the reductions in emissions from vehicles using the new fuel. But this will only happen when the marketing of sulphur-free fuels is matched by a sufficient number of vehicles technologically adapted to use this fuel. Current automobiles can perfectly well use the new fuels but without the intended reduction in CO2 emissions. In other words, if the balanced availability and production of the new fuels does not take place alongside a renewal of the vehicles in use, there may be a global increase in emissions, and this would imply significant costs. We can oblige companies – by means of a directive – to market fuel with 10 ppm of sulphur, but we cannot oblige consumers to change cars at the same time. We therefore support – and I would ask Parliament to support – the possibility of reviewing in 2005 the period for the full introduction of diesel fuel, especially for agricultural tractors and other non-road vehicles, because, although it is desirable for them to use sulphur-free fuel, the truth is that the pace of renewal for these vehicles is much slower and the volume of fuel consumed is relatively small. Finally, although this has been mentioned, as rapporteur for the report on the biofuels directive, I am going to refer to volatility, which could affect its application. I am talking about the technical specifications for the fuels used in mixtures. The mixture of bioethanol with gasoline produces an increase in the volatility of the resulting fuel and in countries with hot summers the pressure limits set at around 10% may be exceeded during that season. This seriously harms the competitiveness of those mixtures. But the proposal on biofuels was presented by the Commission after the first reading of this directive on the quality of petrols and we have therefore not had the opportunity to present an ad hoc amendment in this regard for this second reading. I would therefore ask the Commission and the Council, in application of Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 98/70/EC, to propose new specifications and test methods for biofuels and for fuels used by captive fleets. Furthermore, it is urgent to authorise mixture contents greater than 5%. I have also spoken to automobile manufacturers and they assure me that mixtures of 10% are perfectly useable in current engines without any need for change and without harming the engine. Biofuels are a good way to improve the air quality in our cities, as well, and, above all, to diversify the sources of energy supply.

Political group: PPE-DE