First of all, my sincere thanks to my colleague, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler. He has done a splendid job, and his objective approach has made it possible to bridge political differences. The foot and mouth crisis has left deep scars, the culls have brought unhappiness to countless families but have also led to public indignation and rage, sometimes impotent rage at the authorities. Also rage at Europe, which forbade the vaccination of livestock in the area surrounding affected farms. The European Parliament is today presenting a closely argued view, a view that I can endorse entirely. Yes, we are against the unnecessary culling of healthy animals. Yes, we want vaccination in the event of foot and mouth outbreaks. Yes we must persuade supermarkets to sell the meat of vaccinated animals as a matter of course. Yes, there must be emergency action plans. We must introduce a global dimension, a clear statement must be issued by the OIE and there must be effective monitoring of imports, including at airports. And yes, we must improve the structural health of the sector: good hygiene, no more ramshackle transport and an end to subsidy policy that gives too much encouragement to the movement of animals. We must also ensure good monitoring at all times. I am in complete agreement with all these points. We cannot leave it at that, however. A political wish list is not enough. As long as the European Parliament has no say in the agricultural field, there is a risk that our resolution will remain a paper tiger. Unless we link this resolution to concerted pressure in the Convention, all our efforts will have been in vain. Worse still, we shall have awakened unfounded expectations and we shall be fuelling renewed Euroscepticism. In the Netherlands, the 2001 foot and mouth crisis was a kind of harbinger of the political upheaval in 2002. We must also at any rate learn the political lesson. Confidence in politics suffered a heavy blow. An important reason was that political responsibility remained vague, since who was actually responsible for the non-vaccination policy? Was it the government, was it the EU or the international bureau for infectious diseases? It was all very vague. Ministers pointed to the EU, the EU Commissioners pointed to the national governments and the OIE. For citizens, the complex structure of responsibilities was scarcely comprehensible, and that created the impression of politicians who took up positions but subsequently preferred to hide behind others. Politicians who shirk responsibility destroy the credibility of politics. This game of buck passing has backfired badly on Europe. The hundreds of angry letters and angry e-mails were the signs of a human but also an interinstitutional tragedy. A future foot and mouth outbreak must never lead to a mass slaughter of livestock. In the period ahead, we must direct all our efforts to this end. This requires a foot and mouth policy in which responsibilities are clearly established, at regional, national, European and international level. Parliaments must be involved. Our aim must be a foot and mouth policy that is not anonymous. Responsibilities for choices and for compliance must be clearly established, and it is our task to communicate these. I hope that this report may contribute to this process and again thank the rapporteur.

Political group: PSE