Madam President, Commissioner, I am glad that we have the opportunity today to speak on the subject of this directive – not so much out of any personal attachment to detergent issues, but quite simply because this report also shows that the European Union is moving towards abandoning the end-of-life policy and instead, to an increasing extent, seeking to develop modern and environmentally friendly products that are economically and socially sustainable. That means that we want to motivate industry to move progressively to other products and, at the end of the line, no longer to rely on the catalytic converter or on the waste treatment plant or on big exhaust systems. Instead, right at the start of the process, we want to move on to new products that are sustainable. This directive is a forward step in terms of the internal market, because its consequence will be that many national regulations current in Europe will be harmonised, the objective being to have equal and comparable criteria for approval, and especially to ensure the removal of distortions to competition in this area too. So, Commissioner, I am very glad that you were present at the group's hearing, and that collaboration between environmentalists and your department has developed extraordinarily well in the last few years. This policy will benefit not only consumers, but also the environment, water policy and, above all, the internal market as well, and to that I am especially committed. There is, for example, no doubt that biodegradability must be progressively revalued. Mr Nobilia has come up with a very good proposal, and I cannot do other than endorse it. If I may, very much on the spur of the moment, consider the amendments tabled by the , I do not think that all of them are wrong, but, yet again, their tendency is to enable the big players to perform these services, so that the small ones inevitably go to the wall. That is a classic example of a policy militating against small businesses, because only really big firms will be able to surmount these obstacles. As Mr Purvis has already pointed out, there is the danger that legislation like this will do precisely what we must not do by driving into a corner those whom we are actually trying to encourage to make use of niches. It is these whom we have to protect, and so a degree of tolerance must be built up. Of course, detergents will not be the end of the story, and we have already declared war on phosphates. Every manufacturer should know that the end is drawing progressively closer, but within a fair timescale rather than overnight, enabling businesses to adjust. That is the vitally important and utterly fundamental strategy that we must pursue. The lesson I have had to learn is that those of us who sit in this House should not get above ourselves. As a legislator, or co-legislator, I am quite incapable of prescribing from what point the labels on detergents should indicate the presence of scents. Some suggest 50 milligrams, while others propose 500 milligrams. Mr Nobilia has taken the only wise decision in saying that this would be handed over to experts. If they can come to a decision, the European directive will be aiming in the right direction. I am shocked to learn from studies that the greatest hazards involving detergents have basically to do with our evident inability to use the right amount of them. The people concerned – and I number myself among them – seem to think that they should always put the same amount of detergent into the washing machine, with the result that, if the size of the wash varies – if, for example, it is less by weight – the amount of detergent used is excessive. There is work for us all to do here. I must admit that I have not all that often filled up a washing machine. I am keen to learn how to do it and want to motivate my wife to show me the ropes. So this involves all of us; not just the legislator, not just industry, but the public too. We will be on the right track if we grasp that fact.

Political group: PPE-DE