Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 6 June 2005 - Strasbourg

13. Energy end-use efficiency

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0130/2005) by Mrs Rothe, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (COM(2003)0739 – C5-0642/2003 – 2003/0300(COD)).

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. First of all I would like to thank Mrs Rothe for her excellent work in producing this report. I would also like to thank the other members of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy who have drafted amendments and worked to improve the Commission proposal. Many of these amendments will strengthen and add coherence to the proposal.

As you know, I consider energy efficiency in the Union to be a priority area for Community energy policy. I am gratified that the European Parliament strongly shares this view. The proposal for a directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services can prove to be one of the most effective tools at our disposal, not only as a means of combating climate change and improving competitiveness, but for improving our security of supply, increasing employment within the EU and establishing a viable market for energy efficiency.

As you know the Commission is also in the process of preparing a Green Paper on energy efficiency. This paper is designed to stimulate public debate on the usefulness of improving energy efficiency in the European Union and the best way to do this. The debate on the Green Paper will also focus attention on the energy services proposal and on its role.

The proposal for a directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services has several important objectives and means to achieve these objectives: it sets uniform energy savings targets to be achieved in each Member State through improved energy efficiency and energy services; it is also designed to stimulate market development for energy services and for energy efficiency in general; it applies to distribution and retail sales to most final customers of most types of end-use energy, such as electricity, gas, district heating, heating oil, and most of the transport fuel sector. It is ‘fuel neutral’ in that it seeks to improve energy efficiency regardless of the primary energy involved.

We have also proposed that Member States place an obligation on their energy distributors or retailers above a certain size, requiring them to offer their end-use customers energy efficiency measures or, alternatively, fulfil other energy efficiency obligations, while allowing the necessary flexibility.

The proposal also sets forth requirements for Member States to promote financial instruments for saving energy, such as performance contracting and third-party financing contracts; to improve metering and consumer information; and to promote the certification of energy service providers and improve the quality and use of energy audits. The proposal also provides for Member State regulators to improve their distribution tariff structures when possible, in order to promote energy efficiency.

Two issues that were discussed extensively in the European Parliament and in the Council were the compulsory character of the targets and the measurement systems for energy efficiency achievements. Throughout the debates in Parliament and in the Council, the Commission has maintained its position on the importance of mandatory targets, for both the overall target and for the public sector target.

As regards measuring efficiency, Mrs Rothe’s report points out that a system with bottom-up measurement provides the necessary accuracy and robustness and can be further developed with comitology. We also believe that comitology is the way forward because these issues would be too technical and detailed for coping with in the codecision process. We do, however, see a need to maintain some top-down measurements.

I will have the opportunity later to comment in more detail on the amendments put forward to this House but I would like already to say that the Parliamentary debates in committee have been extremely constructive, and that we have appreciated in particular the efforts of the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs in developing a coherent and consistent report, with many constructive amendment proposals.

I look forward to the debate you will have on the proposal.

  Mechtild Rothe (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, that the Commission should present this proposal for a directive on energy efficiency and energy services was a matter of urgent necessity.

This House had already, and repeatedly, called on the Commission to respond to the creation of the single internal market in electricity and gas by proposing concrete measures to deal with demand, the minimal use we at present make of what is almost our largest energy resource being indefensible. All reputable studies indicate that total energy end-use consumption in the European Union could be reduced by between 20% and 30% without harming the economy or reducing comfort; the technology available makes savings of over 40% possible.

Knowing as we do that we are increasingly dependent on imports, some of them from regions in crisis, and that our current use of energy is a significant factor in climate problems, we are obliged to get started with a real policy for energy efficiency and energy saving. As Commissioner Piebalgs said, that also means a policy that deals with climate change, a policy for improving security of supply, and a policy for something that is part of the Lisbon strategy, namely the creation of many new jobs. Hundreds and thousands of new jobs are to be created in this sector.

So I really am grateful to the Commission for producing this directive, and to Commissioner Piebalgs; I really do appreciate, Commissioner, your desire – which you have expressed on many occasions – to attach such special importance to energy efficiency, and to present a Green Paper on the subject before long.

In this proposal for a directive, the Commission has – as the Commissioner has just said – put forward binding targets, and I am glad that the Committee has done as I suggested and kept these targets binding; indeed, it has gone further in making appropriate increases to the targets proposed by the Commission, whilst allowing the Member States the greater flexibility of reporting on three periods of three years each rather than on an annual basis. If, as the Commissioner has just said, the Commission wants to give rather greater emphasis to the top-down model, the targets will have to be the subject of renewed discussion, for the more the top-down approach is adopted, the higher the targets will have to be. The initial line taken by the Committee is that we want to keep doing things from the bottom up.

None of the Member States will find it difficult to make energy savings of between 3% and 4.5% by means of concrete measures over a period of three years. Let me state again, for the sake of clarity, that it is not the total energy consumption that is to be reduced; rather, the intention is that the concrete measures ensure that savings can be made, so that if, for example, total energy consumption increases in line with economic development, the increase would have been greater had these measures not been in place. Matters will also be made easier for some Member States by the calculation taking into account the continuing effects of saving measures taken earlier.

We also – and this too is important – agree with the Commission that the public services should lead by example – a role laid down for them already in other directives. I am confident that this House’s vote tomorrow will send a clear message to the Council, and will call on it not to take refuge in the ‘take it or leave it’ approach. I am also confident that we can do this with a broad majority.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a really very big thank you to the shadow rapporteurs – Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, Mrs Hall, and Mr Turmes – for their cooperation, which was really excellent and also resulted in the drafting of a compromise, which we are putting before you. The Committee had, in its voting, to decide between two approaches: one was the one I have already described, which involves the Member States taking action to meet clear and binding targets, and the other was that of applying benchmarks. We have already put before you a compromise providing, in the first instance, for binding targets to be applicable, to be followed by the setting of benchmarks in all areas, which – time-consuming and far from simple though this will be – will enable the targets to be met.

(Applause)

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (NL) Madam President, first of all I should like to thank Mrs Rothe for the dedication she has shown in producing this report. In stating its position, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has mainly emphasised the cost-effective approach towards energy efficiency. In addition, we have proposed a number of amendments, on a few key points of which there is, fortunately agreement, but the Committee believes that ultimate proposal does not go far enough, particularly with regard to the flexibility that we have to offer to the Member States where the objectives of energy efficiency are concerned. Consideration should be given to the different degrees of energy efficiency that exist in the Member States. I am pleased, though, with compromise amendment 107, because it provides, or at least can provide, more flexibility for national objectives. That is in itself a good thing, but we should not at the same time stand by the compulsory objectives for each Member State and consequently keep the door open to uniform compulsory objectives being prescribed for each country. I do not think, therefore, that we should abide by the obligation in this respect.

Secondly, it is important for SMEs – which make a considerable contribution in reducing energy consumption – to be guaranteed a major role in the market. The requirement that energy suppliers provide free energy audits would harm SMEs and it is therefore a good thing that this has been abolished.

Thirdly, this leads the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to believe that we must promote a cost-effective approach. It is of major importance for energy efficiency to go hand in hand with sound cost-benefit analysis. The proposal to introduce benchmarks will certainly encourage the spread of best practice, but it is important to set up a possible benchmark system in such a way as to ensure that it does not produce paperwork that cancels out the value added by the benchmarks.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (FI) Madam President, we are dealing with a subject that is central to climate policy. The energy services directive is intended to supplement the directive on emissions trading by directing savings measures to areas beyond its scope and to continue the energy savings process among end-users.

As the person delivering the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I myself had hoped that this would have provided an opportunity to correct the problems and distortions of competition which the directive on emissions trading contains. Now there is much that is good about the directive, for which I wish to thank Mrs Rothe, but I shall address its biggest problem.

I opposed common savings targets for all Member States to the very last, because I believed they would punish countries in which energy saving measures had already been undertaken for a long time. It is perhaps paradoxical, but when we treat Member States uniformly we accord them unequal status. For that reason, I would have liked to refer the Article relating to savings obligations back to the Commission so that a system that takes account of each country’s different potential for saving energy might be created.

The Committee on the Environment approved the Commission’s equal savings targets. I am not objecting to the ambitious nature of the savings, but their unfairness. Once again they are being wrongly allocated. Some countries have been set a very tough target; others, on the other hand, a ridiculously easy one. My own country, Finland, which has invested in the efficient use of energy for years now, is facing quite a different challenge from that which Poland, for example, is.

In a common market, it is a matter of the distortion of competition when measures that have already been implemented are insufficiently taken into consideration and Member States are not given enough latitude. The proposal mentions taking early actions into account when reducing the fixed common target, but as long as it is not abundantly clear what the savings verification method is, nobody can know what measures will be approved. If my idea had been adopted, a study would have been conducted of the savings potential across Europe, and savings targets would have been allocated on a country-by-country basis, according to each country’s savings potential. This way we would have been acting even more ambitiously than now, and, even better, in a sustainable way.

I regret that what we now have is a weak compromise. The issue may well have been considered urgent, but too much haste can be costly, to the extent that it could lead to conciliation with the Council.

  Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Madam President, I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Rothe and all the shadow rapporteurs who have participated in the production of the report for their willingness to seek points of agreement. It has been a pleasure, as always, to work with such constructive and reasonable colleagues.

As Mrs Rothe has already explained, after a long negotiation we have reached a satisfactory agreement on the proposal for a Directive. I believe that this compromise demonstrates the enormous importance that all of us who have participated in the discussion attach to the issue of energy efficiency, as well as considerable agreement on the objectives of this piece of legislation. Security of supply and fulfilment of the objectives we have established in relation to climate change, not to mention those laid down in the Lisbon Agenda, oblige us to take a multi-dimensional approach to energy policy.

I believe that it is important to stress the necessary balance between the establishment of ambitious and realistic general European objectives and their flexible adaptation to the specific situation of each Member State. It is fair to acknowledge that some countries have made considerable efforts in the past, which have led to undeniable improvements in energy efficiency, and these achievements must be recognised when it comes to deciding on the objectives to be fulfilled.

It is also important to make it clear that the ultimate purpose of this directive is not exclusively to reduce consumption, since in countries in which there are significant sources free of emissions it is perfectly acceptable to take a more flexible approach which is more in line with their economic growth needs.

Madam President, I am pleased to reiterate my group’s satisfaction with this new step towards the goal, which we all want to achieve, of combining security of supply, protection of the environment and the competitiveness of the Union’s economy in the global market.

  Reino Paasilinna, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FI) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my group supports all possible energy saving schemes. They are vital for us to be able to achieve the Kyoto objectives and reduce our dependence on imported energy. Mrs Rothe has undertaken a mammoth task, and I thank her for it. She has had very broad support for her proposal. The compromises have not come about easily, but now they have the support of the major political groups.

The proposal entering the debate is an ambitious one. The proposals for energy saving targets, in particular, are even tougher than those in the Commission’s proposal. Trans-European objectives are a good thing. We have seen that, without them, Member States wriggle out of their responsibilities over and over again. The fact is, however, that the position of the Member States in this respect varies considerably from one to another. This proposal will cost my country a lot of money, as we drew up a list of considerable savings measures a long time ago. In fact, we were got started too early, and now we have to pay the price for that a second time. An annual 1% savings target is therefore unfair, because for Finland that would mean increasing the present costs of financing energy saving by 450 million to a billion euros.

It is my sincere hope that we will see a change, and that one day, ladies and gentlemen, we will all be prepared to support directives which seem inevitable but which cost our own country very much when the circumstances are so unfavourable. I would like to point out that we have implemented all the directives that are connected with the Lisbon process.

  Fiona Hall, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, we need this European directive first and foremost because of what the United Kingdom scientific adviser has called the ‘elephant in the living room’; that is, the enormous threat posed by climate change which we largely pretend not to notice, even though it is sitting massively in front of us.

We also need this directive because of a large and growly bear in our living room. That bear is the threat to our energy supply. By 2020, Europe will be 90% dependent on Russia for oil. Already we get a quarter of our oil and half our gas from Russia. The easiest way to lessen our energy dependency is by using less energy.

This directive will give a clear framework in which companies dealing in energy efficiency can operate and compete. I welcome, in particular, the provisions for accurate metering and billing. In the United Kingdom, the single biggest cause of consumer debt is the arrival of a sudden, enormous utility bill on the doorstep. The requirement for regular bills, based on actual consumption, will put an end to that problem.

The targets in this directive are not ambitious; they are way below what is technologically possible. The advantage of sticking with these modest targets is that they are absolutely realistic and attainable. There are whispers coming from the Council that higher targets might be acceptable if they were merely indicative, not mandatory. But high targets are meaningless if they are just a wish list.

The incoming United Kingdom presidency has declared that tackling climate change will be a top priority. It would be tragic and hypocritical if a knee-jerk reaction against making anything mandatory at a European level were to be allowed to be jeopardise that commitment on climate change. I hope that we in the European Parliament will send the strongest possible message that mandatory targets on energy saving are necessary.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE-Group. – (DE) Madam President, on behalf of my colleague Mr Turmes, who is stuck in a traffic jam on the motorway and is therefore unable to thank the rapporteur himself, I would like to convey the thanks of my Group for the very cooperative and productive work in producing this report.

We believe this report succeeds in putting the demand side – rather than always the supply side – at the centre of energy strategy once and for all. That is something that has been neglected in many decades of debate on energy policy and we hope that with the Rothe Report we are now going on the offensive.

Forty per cent potential savings is a great deal. Even for 20% to be economically feasible today without having to internalise the external costs is a tremendous challenge. I would like to say at this point that we have agreed to compromise and that we back the report. We do think, however, that these figures suggest that the Commission and the Council, too, really could be even more ambitious in this area.

Let me say for Mr Paasilinna’s benefit that we do not believe that mandatory targets are damaging, and, if I understand things correctly, Finland, too, could still make enormous savings in heating alone.

When I look at what the Berlin Energy Agency has achieved in energy efficiency, for example, then I wish people would follow Berlin’s example. We rather feel that energy services are the key to the future for energy efficiency. We believe we must create a market for energy services if our ambitious targets are to become reality. I believe economics and ecology can actually go in tandem again here, because if we tackle this single-mindedly then as well as enormous benefits for the environment we will also be able to create jobs, jobs in small and medium-sized firms.

Mrs Rothe, the rapporteur, mentioned public buildings. We really must set an example here. We have been discussing it in Germany for a long time. We have already begun in Berlin, for example, but we have probably still not yet opened up all the potential there is in Germany.

Finally, I would like to express my conviction that we will only really succeed in achieving the ambitious targets we are pursuing in the energy debate, that is independence and security of supply, and in overcoming the major risks, namely climate change and the nuclear risk, if we at last take energy saving and energy efficiency seriously and translate our fine, ambitious words into action. I am sure that Mr Piebalgs will be the first Commissioner in Europe to act rather than only talk.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the province of Upper Austria, from which I come, must surely be the world’s market leader in energy efficiency, and we have always concentrated on making that energy efficiency as economic as possible, in other words making it meet the Lisbon criteria. We all know that the cost of saving is now lower than the cost of new production. It follows that taking action to save energy also promotes growth and employment.

In principle, however, we are against mandatory or binding targets. We should concentrate more on incentives and we should in particular see to it that account is also taken of Member States’ inputs, in my province, for example, that now has far fewer opportunities at the margins than others. We should also establish precisely who could achieve what savings with a benchmark system. Most important of all, we need a system of tried and tested practice. We need to learn, not only in Europe but across the world. Worldwide learning is crucial here. That is why I would like to recommend to Commissioner Piebalgs the establishment of a prize for energy efficiency for which the whole world can compete, so that we can become acquainted with the best models from all over the world and put them into use as quickly and efficiently as possible; that way, we in Europe, too, will be able to create new jobs and growth in this new sector. Perhaps we could also have an impact analysis of this sector so we can learn which measures have the most efficient and quickest effect.

We should also look back over the past 10 years and compare the different Member States, also making comparisons on a world scale; that will give us a basis for the next 10 years for negotiating the targets we want to set and above all for deciding whether there is a place for incentives such as the ‘Intelligent Energy’ Programme, for example.

  Dorette Corbey (PSE). – (NL) Madam President, if I may come straight to the point, we are, today, saying a heartfelt ‘yes’ to a European approach for more efficient energy use, but I should like to start by congratulating Mrs Rothe and the Commission on the proposal and the report on energy efficiency. The more efficient use of energy is in all our interests; we all stand to benefit from it. Greater efficiency means a reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases, which, in turn, helps us meet our Kyoto obligations. Consumers and governments save on their energy bills, and energy-efficient companies become more competitive. Innovation is the key word here and I unreservedly endorse the top runner principle in Amendment 96.

Critics who view this proposal as needless interference from Brussels in their domestic affairs forget the unfortunate fact that, without external pressure, too little is done in order to make our energy consumption more efficient, but I think that Mr Piebalgs’ top down approach should be complemented by its opposite. Amendment 45 challenges enterprises to come up with all kinds of proposals on more efficient energy consumption. I wholeheartedly support the Commission in its endeavour to get Member State governments to lead by example. Governments are ideally placed to make investments in energy efficiency that are unprofitable in the short term but that are recovered in the longer term. Whether by purchasing clean and economical official cars, refuse lorries, electronic equipment or investing in energy-efficient buildings, governments are ideally placed to address this problem.

In this context, I also think that we as European institutions have an additional responsibility. Not only should we impose obligations on the Member States, we must also accept the challenge to enhance our own energy efficiency. I suggest that the European Commission, Parliament and the Council all compete against each other to find out which is the most energy-efficient institution. The outcome could be presented to the public and press during next year’s Green Week, and, while I am on this subject, I should like to say that I think there is room for an improvement of over 30% in the new Parliament building.

  Manuel António dos Santos (PSE). – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, as things stand in the market, and in light of the supply model in most EU countries, we will only be able to achieve a sustainable European energy policy if there is a considerable increase in energy end-use efficiency.

Consequently, the proposal by the Commission on which this report is based, albeit only one element of a much broader body of legislation, represents a key step on the road towards achieving this objective. This issue is all the more crucial given the fact that energy efficiency levels are known to vary a great deal between the Member States. This creates discrepancies and, worse, waste, which is utterly unjustifiable in the context of a future internal market.

The model proposed by the Commission is based on rules that are clearly laid down, yet it is also sufficiently flexible and workable, and will encourage the 25 Member States to save energy. Mrs Rothe approaches the issue from both a global and a specific perspective, which is welcome and helpful. Proposing more ambitious targets for energy saving – and structuring those targets on three different levels – enshrines active intervention on Parliament’s part. This sends out a clear message to the Council that the Union’s energy policy aims are being complied with.

Also relevant and worthy of note are the objectives set for the public sector – which are even more ambitious – and the creation of an energy efficiency fund accessible to every supplier of energy services, which will benefit households and small and medium-sized businesses, although it must be acknowledged that implementing them will be no easy task.

Given the current state of economic development and the practical realities of the internal energy market, further incentives must be put in place to encourage energy efficiency. Global energy policy is about far more than efficiency, however. It is increasingly based on ever-broader new energy sources, and on the safe integration of the Trans-European networks, a philosophy that corresponds to the way in which the transport networks currently operate, as has been mentioned in this House.

It is also essential to move towards tariff and contract harmonisation, thereby giving real dimension to European energy policy.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Madam President, I welcome this directive, as it will primarily help energy users to reduce and monitor their electricity consumption. This measure will require companies to give energy consumers accurate information to allow them to regulate consumption, compare their consumption with a normal user in a similar building and in an ecologically efficient building, and assess the environmental impact of, for example, the CO2 emission levels of the energy they consume.

Consumers deserve to have full and fair information on their energy use. The UK gas and energy watchdog, Energywatch, does an excellent job in giving information to consumers. For example, if you type in your postcode on their website you can find out who is your cheapest supplier. We all know that efficiency is absolutely essential.

I hope implementation of this directive will be fast-tracked in Britain to make it easier for consumers to play their part in reducing energy consumption and tackling climate change. The directive will require the introduction of smart metering services that allow consumers to check at a glance how much energy they are using and how much it will cost. The new meters are obviously part of a package of measures that will also force energy companies for the first time to give individual consumers accurate and detailed bills, along with information about the environmental impact of their energy use.

Climate change is one of the fundamental challenges facing us today and it is vital that we reduce carbon emissions across Europe to help meet this challenge. Progress in this area will require radical changes and investment decisions and behaviour by governments and individual households. This directive will enable people and businesses to assess accurately the environmental and financial impacts of their energy consumption and make informed choices on how to reduce such impacts. I fully support this directive and I welcome the work of the rapporteur.

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mrs Rothe again for her very important work in Parliament. I would also like to thank Mrs Wortmann-Kool and Mrs Korhola for their contribution to this well-prepared report.

I will start where I see more support in the European Parliament. In some cases doubts have been expressed about the need for energy efficiency, at least in the form proposed. It is an important, timely and necessary proposal, although perhaps a bit late in the day.

First of all, concerning the security of energy supplies, there are limited possibilities for the supply side. We should address the demand side: this is where we should focus our attention.

The second issue which is extremely popular with Member States, at least theoretically, is the climate change issue. But the achievement of climate change goals is impossible without firmly addressing energy efficiency issues. We can indicate that if the target of 1% per year of energy efficiency were achieved, we could save around 50% of the European Union’s Kyoto goals. This is an extremely important issue. Without addressing energy efficiency firmly we cannot achieve these goals. Sometimes it is perceived that energy efficiency is against the Lisbon goals or against our competitiveness. Quite the opposite. It is the only way to go forward because climate change is a global issue and if we get competitive development in this field, we will definitely be competitive leaders in the world. So it provides more opportunities than the cost involved.

Regarding mandatory targets, I very much welcome Parliament’s approach. I think a mandatory target is a must. First of all, we do not have very good experience with indicative targets; but secondly, in the energy efficiency area as it relates to all areas, mandatory targets are providing a sustainable policy. I salute the proposal of the Parliament to be more flexible about the scope and level of the target. I would say the Parliament is more demanding than the Commission. I congratulate Parliament on that, but we think that our figures are perhaps more modest, but at the same time generally well defendable in the Council. So, there is no difficulty with a three times three years proposal. I think it gives some necessary flexibility, but at the same time 3, 4 or 5% with a bottom-up approach means a lot. It is a really demanding target and we shall have to see whether it is achievable.

Concerning the issue of one target or individual targets, I am in favour of the general approach of one target. Some of the speakers mentioned that we have a different situation, one country has done more, another less. If we compare, for example, new and old Member countries, the energy consumption per capita in the new Member countries is lower. There are huge possibilities, but it also shows that there is an opportunity for older Member States, so all Member States have the potential to achieve these targets. I think this is a less bureaucratic approach and is a policy throughout the Union, and the Member States that have invested in energy efficiency are gaining more and have more possibilities to achieve something in the energy efficiency field.

There has been less debate on energy services, but I think that this part of the directive is also very important. If you personally look and see what has happened with energy services during your lifetime, you will see that not much has happened. So this directive is giving a necessary boost for the construction of energy services, because the market by itself has not provided this development. There have been some very good proposals from the Parliament, some of which could be acceptable.

There are some very important issues relating to best practices. Each Member State can find something it has done in the energy efficiency area that could be used in other Member States. So it is very important at a European level, but also at Member State, regional and local levels because energy efficiency is an aspect of each of the operations or uses of energy using the equipment that we have. It means that we should involve the whole society in this process. At this stage it must be done in a very intelligent way, but not necessarily always through restrictions.

I would like to thank the Parliament once again for its strong support for this very important directive and I hope that we will convince the Council about the mandatory targets. That is now the big challenge.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.