Van Brempt (PSE). – (NL) I think I can be brief but would very much like to respond to the Commissioner’s reply. I believe that it is particularly important to acknowledge the problem in the first instance. However, I had the feeling that the Commissioner did not wish to acknowledge at all that there is a problem at this moment in the Union as regards the presence of a number of forbidden antibiotics in, for example, chickens and prawns. We all know, Commissioner, that you are especially concerned and are making great efforts to ensure food safety and this House, across all party boundaries, supports you in that. But it is very important – and we still have doubts about this – that the same statutory framework should be applied to products produced in the EU and for products marketed in the EU. I believe this is precisely where the sticking point is. I come from Belgium where we had the dioxin crisis, which is certainly not unknown to you. On that occasion, the Commission acted in a draconian manner against Belgium. You were right, quite right to take strict measures and one of your main accusations related to the fact that the Member State failed to give sufficient information.

I believe that we are now in a similar situation. We have no alternative but to acknowledge the problem and therefore we regret the fact that the inspection mission did not go ahead, since we are convinced that you did not have sufficient reason. I believe that it is absolutely unacceptable that trade relations should be revoked to ensure that certain inspections do not take place or that lower or different standards should be applied. I should have therefore preferred a number of more concrete answers to the questions, since I do not have the impression that you dealt with them properly. I also think that you can provide a better answer in order to reassure the consumer that what eventually finds its way onto his plate is safe.