Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the second reading I should like to revisit a number of important points from my report. I do not wish to do so however without first thanking my fellow Members. The shadow rapporteurs have been especially helpful. At this point I would also like to direct a word of thanks to the industry. We had the opportunity of holding intensive discussions, not only with the packaging industry, but also with the packers and the environmental groups. This gave rise to heated discussions and it increased my understanding of actual practice. These discussions have convinced me that we must start looking at packaging differently. For a long time it has been self-evident to see packaging as an environmental problem, a small and necessary problem certainly, but a problem nonetheless. We can also see packaging in a positive light by looking at it in conjunction with the product. Packaging then becomes the protector of the product and prevents waste. Packaging is also the vehicle of globalisation, of world trade and of socio-economic development. Seen in this light sustainable development is no longer possible without packaging. A positive way of thinking about packaging however is only credible if we go all out to prevent environmental pollution. Which is why recycling and prevention are necessary. I shall turn to them briefly now. First of all recycling. This is an important part of the directive. Some even maintain that really the packaging directive is first and foremost a recycling directive. In the debates during the first reading I pointed out that recycling is not a goal in itself and that there are also limits to the environmental benefit of recycling. During the second reading we were mainly concerned with the costs of recycling. The British Government in particular is concerned about the extra costs of more recycling and published figures on this. What remains unclear however is the way in which the costs have been calculated. Recycling costs money, but it does produce something as well. The greater the scale, the more cost-effective, but there are limits of course. If you want to collect the last tin in the north of Finland, that does of course cost a disproportionate amount of money. Our discussion about the environmental benefit in the first reading and the economic costs in the second almost inevitably lead to the conclusion that the optimum percentage could vary substantially from one country to another. The discussion was indeed more of a discussion between countries than between political groups. Ultimately we are going to have to work towards each country finding and fulfilling its own optimum. But that is only possible if sufficient recycling capacity has already been created in each country. That is why we need clear objectives now. We must certainly not set the bar too low, nor too high, nor too close, nor too far away. We need a good middle position. I therefore call on you to support the compromise that the groups have reached. This compromise is 55% in 2007. In passing I note that we are therefore later than the original Commission proposal, because that was 55% in 2006. It is very important to set ambitious but achievable targets for the new Member States as well. They must themselves be involved with this. Waste and recycling have become global markets. There is no objection to the export of sorted waste, but we must be sure that it has indeed been sorted and that it is indeed being properly processed in developing world countries. The exporter must prove this. Prevention. Prevention still receives too little attention in the packaging directive. We have to do something about producer responsibility. We have done so previously in the electronic waste directive and the end-of-life vehicles directive. The responsibility of producers here is not just financial. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy demands better implementation of the essential requirements and asks producers to choose the most environmentally friendly alternative. It is a good idea to set up an indicator for this. Different materials such as paper, metal, glass and plastic must compete on an environmental quality basis. This will provide an incentive for constant innovation in the environmental field. And there is an incentive to invest in recycling capacity. It will lead to every country having optimum recycling capacity because every material producer will have an interest in recycling. The introduction of an indicator is also a way of giving consumers greater involvement with packaging and of giving supermarkets or businesses the opportunity only to choose five-star packaging for example. In this way sustainable development is something that concerns all of us. This approach fits in perfectly with the sixth environmental action programme. I would like to draw your attention to two further points. Firstly, re-use. Discussion of this topic has gained fresh momentum since Germany made deposit systems compulsory on 1 January. Complaints are pouring in about this because of the distortion of the internal market. Deposit systems can indeed conflict with the internal market. It is a pity that the Commission has not seized upon the revision as an opportunity to do something about the long list of complaints. It is also a pity that no majority was to be found in the first reading for the amendment to create clarity. We must prevent improper utilisation of re-use and therefore we must put the environmental result first here too. The second point that I would like to make concerns ceramics. I have a question for the Commission about this. The ceramics industry is concerned about the effects of the packaging directive and is seeking total exemption. There are two points on which I would like a clear statement from the Commission. Firstly, in my view it is not advantageous for the ceramics industry to fall completely outside the packaging directive – this directive does after all provide the basis for trade in the internal market. Commissioner, what is your opinion on this? Secondly, I would like clarity as to whether the ceramics industry will have a recycling obligation by 2007. In my view it will not, but on this too I would like confirmation from the Commission.

Political group: PSE