Mr President, I asked to be allowed to speak again at the end of the debate – we are not quite at the end. Allow me to say a few words on the debate. I would like to thank the honourable Members who have spoken so far, and Mrs Doyle, Mr Goodwill and Mr Nicholson, who have yet to speak, for what they have to say and for the fair treatment we are giving each other. Those who sat in Parliament during the last parliamentary term know that it is Parliament which has cause to be proud of having got a grip on the BSE disaster in the individual committees and in the House as a whole, in a way which cut across the political divide. I tried at all times, as chair of the committee, to be fair to all the Member States, strict but fair, as my teachers always used to say to me, and I am trying to do the same now. Allow me therefore to say a few words on some of the points raised. Yes, Mr Trakatellis and others are right, Mr Staes. We still have no tests for live animals. We still have no tests for very early infection, which is why the Commission is being called upon to keep on working on this, and I know that it is doing so. Of course we need that. Mr Whitehead said quite clearly that safety must be a priority, but he would, of course, like the precautionary principle to be applied in equal measure in other Member States and that is the main point here. To some members who have spoken or who have perhaps yet to speak I should like to state one thing quite clearly: we are legislating here for the whole of the European Union, for the 15 Member States with widely varying safety levels. We are not legislating just for Great Britain. We know that the data-based export scheme, that the OTS over-30-month scheme, that all these things are important and are working. I am the first to recognise what Great Britain has achieved and at what price to farmers. I have spoken to countless officials and farmers’ representatives in Great Britain over recent years and I know that. Nonetheless, I must ensure that this level of safety also applies to Italy, Germany and all the other countries in the European Union. Which is why I believe that this regulation is a good regulation. When Mrs Attwooll and others ask if we can have derogations for countries which are already that good and if they must still remove the spinal column, then I call on you, Mr Byrne, to table a proper list of derogations to the Council saying countries A, B, C and D comply and are exempt from certain measures. I will be the first to support it. But I do not want this to be rushed, as is the case with certain proposed amendments. This is why I stand by the position which I described earlier. I think that we really should stick with what we discussed in committee and with what Mrs Doyle and I have re-tabled. This particularly applies to proposed Amendment No 56, to which Mrs Attwooll referred. I will be the first to support this at second reading, if the Council makes the proposal, but we need to list clearly and to substantiate clearly where derogations are possible and under what conditions and for which Member State. What must the Member State do to qualify? And of course I support Mrs Grossetête: naturally, tests must be carried out on animals which have died from unknown causes but that is already included in the Commission’s proposal on the tests. (Applause)

Political group: PSE