Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is of course hard to try to bring about an agreement at first reading. Will, knowledge and cooperation are required. I wish to thank all those of my fellow MEPs who have contributed their opposition to, and support for, this process. It has been hard, but it has been extremely constructive. I shall address some of the aspects that are most important to me about the proposal. One such aspect is its scope. I am exceptionally fortunate that the inspections now extend to include animal health and welfare. That probably constitutes Parliament’s greatest success in this hugely sensitive area about which the electorates in all our countries are extremely concerned. Another aspect is the transport of animals through Europe, and it is important that this is at least included in the control programme. Parliament has also contributed the control of labelling while the inspections are under way. The Member States’ own control programmes must state that the inspectors’ tasks include that of checking that the labelling on food packets is correct, that it complies with the rules and that the contents and declaration of contents do in actual fact correspond with each other. That is a crucially important point for us as normal consumers when, on an ordinary Thursday afternoon, we are to do a bit of quick shopping for the evening meal. The fact that the whole chain is to be included – right from the field to the shop, dining room and restaurant – is the principle that of course permeates the whole of the food safety legislation. Another aspect, about which I am both disappointed and pleased, is transparency. A clear majority of the committee demanded a name, shame and fame system. It was not possible to implement this because the Member States invoked legal and constitutional reasons why it should not be. As a Liberal, I perhaps eventually realised that it is probably not the state’s and the authorities’ task to say that the one producer is good and the other bad. With the system of transparency that now exists in this regulation, we have handed over this name, shame and fame function to civil society. A consumer group, animal protection group or local media organisation will be able to request the inspection reports and thus be responsible for this function, telling people how things appear behind the scenes. The funding of duties is a very controversial issue – not between the Commission, the Council and myself but within Parliament. Some people want to see a permanently fixed duty, which is set in stone and the same for everyone. That would perhaps be very good, but it has been tried and has failed. Not all countries within the EU are exactly alike. The same basic conditions do not apply from Portugal to Finland or from Ireland to Hungary. I do, however, think that the proposal now before us is nicely balanced. Duties are to be collected, but it is clearly defined which duties are to be included. Special account is also to be taken of small, traditional companies, something I think is very important. It is important for us in the European Parliament to protect the small producers of unusual products that are the essence of Europe’s cultural heritage in the area of food. We must defend them and give them a chance. They must not be exempted from the thinking about safety, but less harsh duties might in actual fact be imposed upon them in the context of this control. I would appeal to you all firstly to vote today despite all the problems that exist and, secondly, to fall in with my compromise vote list. Finally, I wish again to extend my many thanks to the Commission and the Council and, above all, to the Italian and Irish Presidencies. Thank you very much for your fantastic cooperation.

Political group: ELDR