Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this evening, food once again occupies a prominent place on our agenda. We have made a great deal of progress over the past two years. Food must be safe, and confidence in this respect is essential. The internal market must be founded on common rules. Consumers must be able to rely on the fact that food produced in other Member States is safe and meets the hygiene requirements. Hence my warm support for the Commission’s proposals. It is useful to create a comprehensive framework for food hygiene and for hygiene in the veterinary industry. It is also useful to combine all the legislation in one package. I would also like to extend my sincere congratulations to Mr Schnellhardt. Many hours of work and consultation have gone into this report. Despite this, I should like to make seven comments. Firstly, too much emphasis has been placed on hygiene procedures. This is why we have somewhat lost sight of the end goals, which is unfortunate. In my view, the results that we aim to achieve with legislation must be clear. I am of the opinion that a certain level of flexibility is permitted in the procedures and working methods. There is more than one way of skinning a cat. Secondly, we must realise what we are doing. We know that emotions run high where food is concerned. Against globalisation, against large-scale production, in favour of local production and in favour of tradition. These emotions are often there for a good reason. Politics cannot, and must not, ignore these emotions. We must realise that tougher and stricter rules can often only be observed by larger companies. Stricter rules encourage industrial production, but it is precisely this industrial production that consumers distrust. In this sense, over-regulation has the opposite effect. Moreover, we must create room for national cultures. Flexibility is therefore what is needed in order to use the guides for good practice. There is no reason why we should prefer European guides to the national guides. There should be a choice. Above all, we should realise that these guides are ultimately nothing more than an aid. In this connection, we should ask whether HACCP should be applied in agriculture. HACCP was not designed with farming in mind. The strict application of the HACCP principles is said to be detrimental to one-man or family businesses. Here too, HACCP is an aid. It provides a way of preparing food in a responsible manner. It is not a goal in itself. A third comment concerns hunting. This is, without a doubt, an issue that has been accorded excessive amounts of political attention. In our opinion, national legislation can be used for hunting on a small scale. However, there are limits. We are not in favour of excluding the whole of Section II for private and local use. If a check shows that there are no disturbing characteristics, we believe that small-scale supplies to local markets can then be subjected to the same rules as private consumption. Fourthly, I should like to say a few words about third countries. We must guarantee that imported food meets the same high hygiene standards as food produced here. For this, fair and thorough checks are required. Food safety, however, should not be used as a stalking-horse for protectionism. Food safety is a world task. We must support developing countries in order to place safety at the top of the list of priorities. Fifthly, responsibility should be clearly defined on behalf of citizens and politicians, but certainly on behalf of businesses and their workers too. Training for workers is important, in my view. Annual training can be useful. During the course of the decision-making process, it is possible to make some changes to the nuts and bolts of this amendment. Workers who pillory a lack of hygiene should not fall victim to this. This is what the whistle-blowers' amendment comes down to. My sixth comment concerns the detailed nature of the legislation. We should keep the objective of food hygiene in mind. People who organise and monitor food production are skilled professionals. European politics does not need to regulate the number of tiles that should be on the local butcher's shop wall. We now have an opinion about the packaging of bivalve molluscs too. We know how bivalve molluscs retain their vitality. But to be honest, this is not the reason why I became a politician. Which brings me to a final, political consideration. We must ask ourselves whether this is the way forward. Should we as Parliament continue to be concerned with such detail? We support Schnellhardt's comitology amendments, but I should already like to state that Parliament should not get bogged down in all the technical details. This is a task for the Commission, which can call on Food Authority experts. I suggest that for the second reading, we reconsider our stance on this score. Thanks once again to Mr Schnellhardt and thank you for your attention.

Political group: PSE