Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the German veterinarians. They have proved outstandingly capable of defending their professional interests. Let me also thank Mr Schnellhardt. In a number of respects I do not agree with his approach, but he has worked openly and conducted consultation in a very pleasant manner. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all German veterinarians. There is some misinformation about the content of the proposals in circulation. The question therefore is whether the outcome of the vote today reflects Parliament’s views. To be perfectly clear: I am not speaking now on behalf of my group. Mr Staes has already described it aptly: the flesh is weak. To put it in even stronger terms, part of the meat sector is especially weak when it comes to dealing summarily with abuses itself. Hormones, foreign proteins, water injections, impurities and harmful bacteria – they will all sound familiar to you. We have collectively made food safety one of the cornerstones of our mandate. We have succeeded in laying down the general principles of European food safety policy. We have all decided that the producer has primary responsibility for his products. That is a clear and good principle. Today we are taking a decision about the way in which we in Europe organise our system for controlling products of animal origin. In other words, where are we controlling, what are we controlling, and who is doing the controlling? In the light of the general food legislation this question seems easy to answer. The producer ensures that his beef steak, his pork steak and his fillet of chicken are in order and the government takes care of final control. The Commission also wants to offer meat producers, and in particular the pig and calf farms, the scope under strict conditions to accept their responsibility themselves. Part of the meat sector is indeed keen to accept responsibility and itself bring abuses to an end. It is a pity that the rapporteur intends to nullify the opportunity that the Commission’s proposal is presenting. It is of course strange that we first decide to place general responsibility with the producers and that we are now, today, going to reverse it again. For that reason alone I argue against Amendment No 135. I understand that the German veterinarians and the British meat inspectors have still to accustom themselves to the idea that the meat sector can take responsibility for itself. They think that staff of meat farms have no capability or are not in the position to monitor quality. To be honest we think that we must in any event move away from authoritarian farms unwilling to tolerate any criticism of the quality of their products from their employees. But separately from that, I ask everyone to think carefully. The meat sector is a highly regulated and well-controlled sector, but there is no sector that is talked about so often on account of scandals. The BBC recently showed a documentary about abuses in the Dutch poultry sector. More government control will unfortunately not help to purge the sector of malpractice. On the contrary, it will be counterproductive, because it removes responsibility from farms. I think that we must place the responsibility with the producer in a way that is recognisable for consumers. I therefore ask you to consider Amendment No 127. We must remove meat from anonymity, for that is the most effective way of improving safety and quality. If pork steak or fillet of chicken are placed on the market under a clear brand name, it is of the greatest importance for the producer to handle meat very carefully. Currently farms that fiddle can carry on regardless, because the consumer has absolutely no idea where his fillet of chicken comes from. Which means that we keep having complaints and incidents. Naming and shaming is an extremely effective way of improving food safety and quality. To be perfectly clear, the individual responsibility of farms does not of course replace public responsibility and public control. Finally, I should like the meat sector to take a critical look at itself. We must of course take a critical look at ourselves as well. Our way of working is not very transparent. The quantity of amendments is too great and too many of them are simply technical in nature. It is absurd that today we are voting on the position of the health stamp on the rabbit leg, on the testing of meat from hermaphrodite pigs and on the suitability of the udder for human consumption in the event of brucellosis infection. If we fail to concentrate on the political outlines, our work can only be judged by the meat sector and the veterinarians themselves. It is therefore very easy to spread misinformation, but, as this is of no help to the consumer, this is where policy itself comes into play.

Political group: PSE