Mr President, to begin with, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking my colleagues for bravely cooperating in the intensive way they did. It was, of course, not always as simple as that. With me, it never is. However, I am very grateful to you that we have got through all this. A number of years ago, the European institutions made the right decision to attend to private motoring. We began with cars and oil and are now faced with the question of what to do with the nine million cars which end up on the scrap heap every year. Tonight, we shall also be discussing tyres, and we shall certainly one day also have to discuss how roads need to look in the future, given that they are much too noisy. In view of the nine million cars withdrawn from circulation every year and the 45 million litres or so of waste oil, I think something needed to be done about this issue. I believe the Commission has undoubtedly submitted a somewhat overly prescriptive proposal with, in my opinion, some outmoded initiatives in terms of environmental policy. Fortunately, more work has, however, been done upon the proposal in the course of the three readings, and we now have a proposal which is along the right lines. Let us bear in mind that, where motoring as a whole is concerned, 80% of damage to the environment is due to driving, 19% to car manufacture and only 1% to the disposal of vehicles. We must therefore set the correct priorities where this issue too is concerned. I therefore believe that, by setting exhaust values and quality standards for fuel, we have begun in the right way, and today we closed with the question: how do we deal with the issue of end-of-life vehicles? We have introduced rigid quotas, without which no progress can be made. This Parliament ought also, however, to have had the courage to make a really bold decision in favour of a really new type of car for the future, one which will not weigh 1 500 kg but perhaps only 1 000 kg and which, with its lifetime ‘mileage’ of 300 000 km, may be seen to have genuine advantages in terms of environmental policy. On the basis of the Commission’s proposal, we have unfortunately allowed ourselves to be persuaded to adopt old quotas which frankly promote cars made of steel rather than modern, versatile cars which are made of other materials and which are much lighter. Cars of this kind, made out of plastic or fibreglass or whatever, do not, however, have the advantage of being able to be recycled. How, for example, can you seriously expect to recycle an airbag, which is there as a safety feature and not for recycling purposes? A bold move towards a special quota for really light cars would therefore have been appropriate in this case. Unfortunately, we have missed that opportunity, something I particularly regret. One general point – and also a disputed one in this House – was the question of costs. The Commission has been quick to say that, in the future, all costs are to be borne by the manufacturer. At first glance, that is a brilliant idea. The only thing is that, in the end, this would harm the consumer by eliminating competition. And that is my overall objection to this Directive. Certainly, we would now be clearly transferring the costs to the manufacturer, but to one who no longer had any competition and who would in future dictate the cost of recycling cars. And it is precisely this which is anti the consumer. We need more, not less, input from the market in this area. This is a wrong decision, which I very much regret because it will have consequences. We see this already where computers are concerned. The Directive concerned is, in fact, on the table. Before long, it will be lawnmowers, then mopeds and then furniture which will be subject to such directives. I wonder to whom, one day, we shall return our old roads when they are too noisy, and who is to pay for the transaction. Cost allocation is therefore not as simple as all that. I should really have liked things to have worked out differently, but I accept the majority decision. The bans on metals are quite in order because we need, in the longer term, to come up with a ban, and not only because of the scientific results. We have made exceptions which will be reviewed by the Commission in three years’ time for, together with the scientific advisory board, the Commission has overall responsibility for making the relevant decisions in this area in three years’ time. I believe it will do so. All in all, I believe that, apart from the issue of cost, this Directive is a great success and marks a step forward. I would thank the Commission and the Council and, once again, my fellow MEPs. It has been a pleasure to work with you. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE