Mr President, nine million cars are shredded and scrapped every year in Europe. Even though they can no longer be driven, these nine million cars may still be traded and moved across borders; and not just intra-Community borders, but also those outside the Union. It is therefore only right that the European Union should draw up Community rules on how these nine million vehicles every year are to be recycled and processed. We believe that the directive has a few weaknesses that we in the House should work on to produce a directive which is genuinely ground-breaking. We therefore have a number of amendments. I personally believe that the scope of the directive goes beyond its objective. I do not think it is necessary for classic cars to be part of the directive. Nor do I think that motorcycles should be included, as the distinctive culture of recycling within the motorcycle industry obviates the need for a European directive in this area. I am not looking for such rigidly high recycling quotas when it comes to special-purpose vehicles either. I want special-purpose vehicles such as ambulances to have high recovery quotas. This is my main concern in this matter. In my opinion, the directive solidly regulates the matter of accountability for how a car is disposed of in Europe. This can be left as the Commission has proposed with the Member States ensuring the appropriate collection points for draining cars. This will involve, for example, disposing of more than 32 million lots of used oil, removing break fluid, etc. An important part of this directive is the issue of what to do with used parts. What should we do with the shredded products? We should not overlook the fact that, although quotas are an important point in recycling and recovery, they are by no means the only point. Do not forget that, in the case of cars, 80% of environmental impact comes through driving, 1% through recovery and 19% through construction. Quotas are not, therefore, the only parameter in the matter of environmental compatibility, just one of many. Of course we need to aim high, but quotas must not become an end in themselves. We must understand that the bigger picture is important when it comes to the environmental impact of cars. I am far keener to see us move away from today's car, weighing 1,400 kg and driving an average of 200,000 km, to a future car capable of driving the same distance but weighing just 1,000 kg. This would at least mean 400 kg times 200,000 km less transportation. This would represent real environmental progress because it would lead to a large reduction in CO2 which, if I have rightly understood the Kyoto Protocol, is the important factor. We therefore consider that, in future, vehicles which clearly and effectively use lightweight construction methods will produce less CO2 and should receive preferential treatment in their combustion quotas. It should not be for each Member State, but for you and your staff, Commissioner, to decide whether these lightweight construction vehicles (and there is also talk of 3-litre vehicles) should receive preferential treatment. We think they should. May I say something about costs. Some say that all the costs should be borne by the manufacturers; that this is only right and in the very best interests of the consumer. However, this can be seriously questioned as the manufacturers will pass on all the costs to consumers and acquire for themselves a state-sanctioned monopoly on recycling. I can only warn you against consenting to this. There are amendments which propose splitting the costs fifty-fifty between the manufacturer and the buyer of a new car. The money from this pool, system, or however you want to picture it, would mean that from 2006 all vehicles in circulation could be taken in without cost to the last holder. This too is a particular desire of my group. Our proposal to split the costs has a crucial advantage, namely that we won't be an immediate candidate for the Court of Justice when the directive is adopted. The car industry is concerned about and half expecting repercussions, which is a serious problem which we must address accordingly. This is why I propose splitting the costs between the first holder and the manufacturer. As for a ban on certain materials: of course we need one! A car has dangerous components which we must ban long-term. This means that we need a pressure instrument. The Commission has put forward various proposals which are too stringent and we have come up with some alternatives. There are a number of sound amendments. This Parliament has been given more authority, so let us use it! Let us have the courage to put together a ground-breaking directive. A directive which we put together just for the sake of it would not be worthy of this House. I ask for your support.

Political group: PPE-DE