Guido Sacconi, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am helped by the fact that Mrs Jackson and Commissioner Dimas have given a full explanation of the main elements of this compromise, which I also support. Let me therefore put forward some eminently political thoughts.

I am a negotiator and I always ponder whether or not the compromise that has been reached is valid. I therefore read the texts again with a fresh mind, following the night of the negotiations. Goodness only knows why negotiations always have to end at night. Is an agreement reached in the morning of less value? There is food for thought there as well. In all sincerity – and I say this to our Green and GUE colleagues, and to Karl-Heinz Florenz who I see has re-tabled an amendment from the Environment Committee which bore my signature and which I cannot therefore but support – in all sincerity, looking at both the compromise and the Environment Committee texts, we have achieved – and the main credit goes to you, Mrs Jackson – a really amazing result.

Are we aware that there was nothing about recycling in the Commission proposal and then in the common position? Nothing apart from a recital which mentioned the recycling society without going into further detail. There was nothing! Now we have precise targets; we have a review in 2014 when other materials, not covered at present, could be included; we know for sure, as Commissioner Dimas has just confirmed it, that legal action can be taken against States failing to implement the measures planned to achieve those targets.

That seems a very important fact to me. It is also very important that a political and legal process has finally been set in motion to compel States to draw up genuine waste prevention plans, and that a hierarchy of waste disposal which respects the environment has finally been included in European law, and is legally binding, making waste no longer just a problem but a resource.

In all honesty, therefore, and shouldering our full responsibility, I believe that rejecting this compromise and heading for a risky conciliation would not be in the interest of European citizens, but would turn the achievement and establishment of these targets, set out here in a clear and absolutely incontrovertible way, into a kind of Russian roulette.