Thank you, Ms. President, dear Mr. Council president, dear Mr. Commissioner, dear colleagues,

the instruction on accreditation and market surveillance legally and substantially represents a complex and seemingly dry, rather technical subject, but it is no doubt of great political significance for the women and men consumers, and also for the economy.

The problems that have spurred the commission to its proposal and have guided the committee on the interior market and consumer protection in its debates, numerous changes and decisions, are apparent. I shall only go into three questions here:

First of all, the system of accreditation, although it exists in most members states and has essential significance for the quality of the market supervisory organisations, had not been regulated in a unique way on a Europe-wide basis up to now.

In the light of the European interior market and free commodity exchange in the EU, it is especially important for women and men consumers that the apparent differences in the quality and efficiency of market surveillance organisations are adjusted towards the top by European rules for the accreditation agency.

The European Parliament for that purpose beyond the commission proposal has pushed through clearly stronger obligations on these agencies and on the member states. This instruction clearly also interdicts commercialisation, profit-orientation and competition among the accredidation agencies, and their independence as well as their public legal character are guaranteed.

Second, although the security and the protection of consumers and environment are regulated in numerous European directives or by obligatory standards, not only the case of the US toy producer Mattel last year has shown that the practice not only is often unsatisfactory, but that the controls over the abidance by the instructions at the European borders and on the European market are extremely diverse and in some cases insufficient. Of course, changes, improvements of individual directives as for instance of the toy directive are required. The Commission in its directive proposal was concerned above all with improving the systems of market surveillance, with strengthening them and getting them closer to each other.

This position was not only shared by the European Parliament, but extended in many ways, and the obligations on the member states and the market surveillance agencies, inclusive of the demands to the cooperation with the customs' agencies, were made significantly more concrete and were increased.

This, to our minds, also included strong informal obligations and public information rights. I am glad that Council and Commission have accepted this concern by the Parliament.

Thirdly, I personally consider it the greatest success for the Parliament and the most essential improvement we reached that the consumer goods were included. The advantages of this instruction that consist in their strongly legally binding character, and the advantages of the General Product Security Directives to which there belong very detailled, but to be sure legally very non-committal measures for the protection of consumers, can be combined with each other. That was the politically, legally and technically most difficult part of our discussions and of the negotiations with Commission and Council. That it succeeded can be retraced very clearly to the fact that the three institutions maybe favour very different ways, but were agreed on the aim of a stronger protection of the women and men consumers and a more effective market surveillance.

Therefore, I want to express my gratitude for the intensive, concrete and respectful cooperation with the commissioners Kuneva and Verheugen, I thank the collaborators of the commission and the partners from the German, Portuguese and in particular the Slowenian presidency. I want to use this occasion to remind you of the recently deceased Michel Ayral who marked the draft of the commission in an essential way and whose work and constructive procedure we all shall probably miss painfully in the future.

I may confirm to the presidency that without the overarching cooperation of the three most recent presidencies we would have hardly reached the result at the present time.

The legal basis for the security and health of the consumers, for environmental protection and for a corresponding quality of products is significantly strenghtened by way of this instruction. It is now up to the member states to also implement them comprehensively, to substantially strengthen market supervision. That up to now is the real deficit. Of the commission, I expect that it does justice precisely also in this area to its responsibility for control and coordination - necessary cooperation in the commission included.

Finally, and I want to highlight that, I want to thank the two other referees on the commodity package, Christel Schaldemose and Alexander Stubb, as well as the shadow referees of all fractions involved for excellent support and a completely unproblematic collegiality.