Mr President, I wish to thank both my colleagues and Mrs Wallström for the viewpoints that have been put forward in this debate and that I think provide quite a clear picture of the lines of demarcation. I think that there are a number of factors that should be borne in mind where this protocol is concerned. The first is, of course, that we are concerned here with minimum regulations. We must comply with what the protocol requires of us, but we may, according to the protocol, go further if we wish. That is the situation that applies. It also, of course, means that other countries around the world may go further than the protocol requires. What I state in the report is that we shall respect this. We require of our exporters that they respect the Cartagena Protocol and so, too, the legislation that other countries may adopt and that may go further than the European Union’s. If we did not, we should in practice be acting contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Cartagena Protocol. I believe there is no question of our doing that. Secondly, we should be aware that the Cartagena Protocol is in the process of development. Regular negotiations are under way. Quite a few areas of the Protocol have still not been clarified. It is just the general thrust of it that is being delineated. Other areas have been clarified. We must therefore bear in mind that we need a policy that is far-sighted and that shows the general direction in which the EU wishes to develop the Cartagena Protocol in the future. It is precisely this to which the regulations on liability relate. We are not concerned here with the EU’s liability legislation, which we are in the process of debating elsewhere. What is at issue is Article 27 of the Cartagena Protocol, which says that we must begin to negotiate internationally concerning liability where this type of product is concerned. As a Parliament, we support the Commission and the Member States in campaigning, in future negotiations within the framework of the Cartagena Protocol, for a global system of liability which would of course favour the serious actors in this area. It is a system of this kind that is required. When it comes to the amendments, I believe that Amendment Nos 50 and 51 seriously weaken the report by aiming to remove important areas from it. Amendment No 50, in particular, actually goes against the Cartagena Protocol. We cannot adopt that amendment. I should also like to ask those who regard GMOs differently from myself to reflect for a moment. We naturally form different judgments of what is possible and different assessments of the risks that this technology may involve. Irrespective of how we regard the future of this technology, I think there is something we must bear in mind, namely that we must have a system of rules under which the companies that operate in this area are credible. Is a company credible if it exports to countries that have not given their permission? Is a company credible if it exports to a country that has not been able to respond to the request for permission? I believe that an industry that acts in this way disgraces itself. We do not stand to gain, and nor should industry stand to gain, from rules that lead to what is in actual fact the bypassing of countries’ right to say yes or no to would-be imports. Next question: are we credible if we export to others what is not good enough for ourselves? Are we credible if we export what we have rejected, for example for reasons that have to do with environmental safety, biological diversity or consumer protection? Of course we are not. Even someone who takes a very positive view of this industry – complicated though it is, with both advantages and disadvantages – ought to appreciate that it is in everyone’s interests to have comprehensive, credible regulations. If the European Union accepts these regulations, they will have an effect not only upon ourselves and our exports, but also upon the world as a whole. They will show that the major global players too take this issue seriously and are prepared to assume their responsibilities. It is with this in mind that I have prepared this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL