draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. – Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating the two rapporteurs. I would add my great thanks to Mrs Grossetête with whom I have worked extremely closely on this particular issue. I am only here to represent the Committee on Agriculture on the veterinary medicines side. It would be remiss of me if I did not say at the outset that one of the problems facing agriculture is that it is going through the worst time it has ever had – I will not mention the problems facing British beef today. Any legislation that this Parliament adopts and pushes through the Commission could have a detrimental effect on industry if it is not put through correctly. Mrs Grossetête has worked extremely well with me and other members on the veterinary medicines bill and, therefore, we will totally support all the legislation in that bill. I would like to raise three issues. Mrs Read briefly covered one. I totally endorse what she says about what is termed 'duality'. One of the problems we have in the European Union is that animals in the very far north, for example, are not necessarily the same as animals in the south. I use the term 'the reindeer syndrome', which many colleagues will have heard me say before. Duality is something that will help to promote the proper use of medicines for species that are not found across the European Union. It may be difficult to get someone to spend the money to test these products for one particular species. Therefore, we have retabled Amendment No 137, which I hope the Commission and Mrs Grossetête will consider. I hope this House will consider supporting it. As I have mentioned, this would help those species that are not widespread. Mrs Grossetête mentioned the way that medicines are dispensed in certain countries. I am delighted that she has taken this on board. I fully support the compromise amendment, which is something I worked particularly hard in the Committee on Agriculture to get through. We are in a situation where Member States differ, firstly, in their definition of what a veterinary surgeon is and what it means and, secondly, in the dispensing of these drugs. In many instances in the United Kingdom, Ireland and one or two other countries, qualified people dispense minor medicines – in particular, products such as worming pills and flea powders. The real worry is not particularly with food-chain animals. But, if this option is removed, we are in a situation where the pets in the animal world will suffer because people will not be able to afford to go to a veterinary surgeon, for example, to get a worming pill for a cat. Therefore, it is important that we have flexibility. I am delighted that both rapporteurs have taken this on board and am totally in favour of it. The final point concerns the use of medicines for equine species. Again, if we are not careful, we are going to inflict hardship on animals that do not deserve it. For example, horses are not eaten in the United Kingdom. It may be that horsemeat is accepted in other countries. If the medicines available to us are restricted, then again it is the animal that suffers. Therefore, it is vitally important that the new Amendment No 65 for equine species is adopted. I shall leave it there, as I have covered the agricultural scene totally. I thank the two rapporteurs for taking on board the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and look forward to a worthwhile result. I hope the Commission will also follow my opinion.

Political group: PPE-DE