Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to start by congratulating the German Government on its ambitions. It is of the utmost importance for there to be governments that are progressive in the environmental field and that are not frightened to take controversial measures. Everyone can level well-founded criticism at the German deposit system. I share this criticism and I will return to this in more detail in a moment. However, before I do this, I should like to emphasise how important it is to take courageous decisions, political decisions, with which consumers can clearly identify. For months, we have been droning on about the Packaging Directive, about whether the objective should be 55% or 60% and whether the system should be introduced in 2008 or 2007. It is therefore refreshing if a government has the nerve to be a trendsetter and stick its neck out. Of course, one or two things are up for criticism, and there is room for improvement in terms of the way in which it has been introduced, but I would also like to point out that those who have submitted this question are now shedding crocodile tears. During the review of the Packaging Directive, amendments were tabled to solve the internal market problems. In these, it was proposed only to permit deposit systems if the environment were to gain from this in a demonstrable manner. In other words, a good environmental reason had to be given for infringements of the internal market. This amendment did not make it because the Liberals and the Group of the European People’s Party voted against it. The German deposit system – as most Germans agree – is not an attractive solution. It is very annoying to have to return your tins to the place where you bought them. There is less unanimity when we consider the impact on employment and the market. The German system leads to a clear shift from tin cans to other packaging, which, in turn, is not fair on the industries involved. In my view, this would still be justifiable if an environmental goal were to be served by it, but this is not the case. The loss of employment outside of Germany is now forming a disproportionate burden on a large number of sectors. The Commission has proven to be a flexible and understanding partner, but patience can, and does, wear thin in the end. It is now time for action in Berlin and, consequently, also for the Commission. This happened this morning, for which I am grateful. We also need a political solution, however. The Court caused a great deal of commotion with the Packaging Directive by excluding waste incineration from recovery. The German deposit system can also result in a legal conflict, which is always undesirable politically speaking. This would be difficult to explain to consumers lugging their tin cans or to workers losing their jobs. To solve political failure, the Commission, Parliament and the Council must come up with a solution of their own that is structural. I am urging the Commission to take the initiative in its own hands and provide clear legislation. Only then can we ensure that infringements of the law can be acted upon immediately. The problems with the German deposit system do not stand in isolation. We have had major problems in the past. Deposit money was often used as a disguised form of protectionism in favour of the country’s own products, for which there is no excuse whatsoever. Commissioner, I should like to ask you a few more questions. What are the options, in your mind, to eliminate these problems once and for all? Is the Commission prepared to cooperate to amend the Packaging Directive via a fast-track procedure, so that these problems can be resolved?

Political group: PSE