Madam President, this is a difficult text. Over the last 18 months a lot of people have asked me, ‘What is all this that you are doing in Europe with electronic waste? What is the point of it?’ The point is quite simply that a few years ago we in the European Union decided that we wanted to operate a sustainable policy in the economic, environmental and social fields. Six million tonnes of electronic waste every year contain an enormous quantity of valuable materials that we want to reuse in future. That is the reason for this directive. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the members of the Conciliation Committee, and also to the Commissioner and the members of the Council who, I think, have scored a minor victory with this report on electronic waste. They enabled us to reach agreement on difficult points. We were, for example, able to state that from 2005 consumers will be more or less enjoined by their Member States – I would have preferred it to have been compulsory – not to throw appliances in the dustbin in future, but to collect them separately. We have set binding targets. Unfortunately, Europe is always outstanding in its unlimited use of undefined legal terms. The hurdles we have set in this directive today are not very high, but they are nevertheless defined and binding. I think that can be called a success. Unfortunately, we are still rather vague about how such materials will be treated in future, but we have used the best available technology. I know only too well that in my country the term ‘best available technology’ is interpreted in 16 different ways, because Germany has 16 federal states. There are bound to still be loopholes, but we have nevertheless made real progress in the field of recycling quotas, too. I believe the quotas for industry are achievable and no one can say we are asking too much. In 2005, citizens will be able to take their products to a collection point free of charge, unless the Member State goes a step further. The Member States can decide that individually. I think our agreement on ‘individual financing’ was a great success. It is a step forward because we would like to have a guidance instrument and those who today are building computers that lend themselves to recycling – like this one, for example – should also be rewarded and those who want to continue producing boring old-fashioned ones in the future should be asked to contribute to the high costs of disposal. There were actually countries that did not want to take this approach. I am pleased to say that by working night and day with the help of other members in other groups we were able to persuade them to agree after all. Following on from the packaging regulation and the end-of-life vehicles regulation, this individual liability is the first step towards a really sustainable environmental policy which, combined with economic policy, has my full support. We may have succeeded in shutting out the free riders that there always are with such a system. There are big firms that order 100 000 refrigerators from the Pacific region just before Christmas and fail to put a logo on them so that the small trader or the citizen has to pick up the bill later. We have made labelling compulsory so that the costs can also be assigned and resources will be available for recycling, however the Member States do it – and we are more than willing to leave that to subsidiarity. The important thing is the guarantee that it is done, and the text reflects that concern. That old appliances must be managed and also paid for – in this case collectively – by the undertakings currently in existence on the market is not in question because there is no other system for doing it. We have, however, left Member States the possibility of disclosing how it is financed so that there can be a ‘visible fee’, or whatever you want to call it, for old stock. I believe this was also a good step. I would have been pleased if, when debating end-of-life vehicles and electronic waste, we could have had a more aggressive and longer debate about how we might do more to encourage a flow of secondary raw materials in future. Unfortunately, we are still very fond of using new primary materials but always tend to turn up our noses at secondary materials. I might go so far as to say we should give such secondary raw materials preferential VAT treatment. That is not necessarily my group’s normal position. I do, however, believe it would be an incentive to bring about real sustainability in this area. That is what it is really about, ladies and gentlemen. We want to reuse raw materials in future. By motivating undertakings to build appliances in such a way that they can be recycled, we have found a free-market way of getting the parties concerned round the same table, and I do not need to tell anyone that for me that is an important reason. I was also very pleased to have the NGOs fighting alongside us on this question and that the undertakings and NGOs adopted a joint resolution in support of our efforts. Nothing like that has happened before in the time I have been in this House – and that is thirteen and a half years. I would at this point also like to thank those colleagues who stayed on board in difficult moments. There are always plenty who fall by the wayside when the going gets tough. Again and again colleagues stuck with it whenever there was pressure from the Council, and in the end, that gave us this success – as did the excellent cooperation you gave us, Commissioner. Basically, though, this directive does have two parts. The second part is the question of how we are to deal with hazardous substances such as cadmium, lead and hexavalent chromium in future. I think we have made a small amount of progress here. Ultimately, this is about collecting and concentrating, for example, stray lead from light bulbs, small radios and small appliances with which we are all familiar. Ten tonnes of lead in one place are absolutely harmless. The same amount in small pieces all over the place, however, is a problem. The Japanese, for example, have shown us very promising approaches here, and we are now making clear to manufacturers, with appropriate incentives, that in the long term we want to create a society where these highly dangerous substances are more and more a thing of the past. Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to say a personal word to my personal colleagues who have been very busy here, working long hours and sometimes through the night.. May I once again thank my colleagues, you, Commissioner, and your staff, who always rendered us excellent assistance whenever we were faced with major questions. I was proud of this European House and would be pleased if in future things could continue in the same way with the next directives.

Political group: PPE-DE