Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is – I believe – an important topic that we have on the agenda this morning: the prohibition of antibiotics in animal nutrition. Before we come to what I hope will be the conclusion to this matter, I would like to thank everyone most warmly: my fellow Members, the staff of the political groups and also the secretariat, all of whom have done such hard work on this. Parliament has been calling for many years for antibiotics to be banned as growth-promoting additives in animal feed, and today we are going to make it a reality in Europe. In our debate on the second reading of this proposal for a regulation, it is certainly apparent that there are widely divergent views on the value of additives in animal feed. The use of antibiotics as growth-promoting additives in the fattening of livestock will now be banned in the EU once and for all with effect from 31 December 2005. I see this policy decision as long overdue in view of the growing resistance to various antibiotics used in the medical treatment of patients. Feedingstuffs imported into the EU from third states must of course take account of the requirements of this new regulation in the same way as those produced within Europe. One important topic in the preparatory debate was the open declaration of flavourings in feedingstuffs. Our constant watchword was ‘let it have in what it says on the tin’, but I do take the view that we must not go too far. The open declaration of flavourings in feedingstuffs has now been dealt with in a compromise between the Council, the Commission, and Parliament. At present, over three hundred flavourings are permitted, and these have been subject to the strictest controls and supervision in the course of production. It is for this reason that all the final formulations of flavourings in feedingstuffs no longer have to be declared individually. I think – and this is an important point – that, in the sphere of business competition, we should also, in the European Union, be aware of the fact that there is such a thing as corporate know-how, and protecting this corporate know-how, should be a matter of major concern to all of us in the political sphere. That is why the new rule in the proposal is an exact parallel to existing rules applicable to food for human beings. We must not apply more stringent rules to animals than we do where people are concerned. That, Commissioner Byrne, is why I see Amendments Nos 17 and 18, which deal with this subject, as particularly important, and I would be glad if you would briefly state what view you take of them. The main point of the compromise is, however, the use of histomonostats and coccidiostats, which are antibiotic additives that will continue to be urgently needed in poultry farming. We are not talking here about the use of antibiotics to promote growth; these products are used to protect animals, and their use as a means of preventing disease in animals strikes me as a vitally important topic, as these are agents that we cannot, at present, do without. I speak from personal experience, having, myself, some years ago, been deeply involved in the field of turkey-rearing. It is generally regarded as inevitable that the disease known as ‘blackhead’, which occurs very frequently in poultry farming – and, I might add, in organic farming as well – will wipe out up to 60% of livestock if we are no longer permitted to use these products. So, whilst these agents will not be permitted as additives indefinitely, they will still be permitted for a limited period. Our intention, Commissioner, in this time-limit in Amendment No 16, is to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the pharmaceutical industry to get them to produce suitable alternative products or, instead, to develop new vaccines. Today’s vote will see us making a definite advance in the protection of consumers in the European Union, and I very much hope that, at 11 a.m., every side of this House will be able to come together to vote accordingly. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE