The rapporteur, Anoveros Trias de Bes (EPP, E), welcomed the fact that the common position of the Council had taken over all the amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading. He recalled that the prime objective of the proposal was to harmonise, pursuant to Article100 of the EC Treaty, the effective protection afforded to inventions in the field of plant protection. Mr Anoveros went on to explain why a new recital had been added by way of Amendment No 1 to the common position; the text of the interpretative statement drawn up by the Commission and the Council on the broad application of the terms of the plant protection certificate, in order to create an equivalent level of protection to that given to medicinal products, should therefore be submitted to the codecision procedure. This was the only possible approach, the rapporteur concluded, that could meet the conditions for safety and transparency that the Council itself had laid down in the code of conduct of 2 October 1995. Stating that it was important to extend the measure on plant protection products by five years at least, Commissioner Monti declared that he opposed Amendment No 2, since he rejected the common position; however, the Commission shared the concerns about greater transparency and legal security, which explained Amendment No 1 as proposed by the rapporteur.