Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the Commission and my fellow Members here in Parliament very sincerely for their highly constructive and expert cooperation. The reports before us reflect that cooperation, and they represent part of the framework needed for safe food production, especially in health terms. While we are sitting here today at this hour discussing measures for greater food safety, people throughout the European Union are sitting in restaurants or at home and enjoying their food, and are unlikely to be asking if their food is safe. In fact our food is safe, safer than in many other places in the world. The Commissioner has seized the opportunity given to us by the crises we have experienced recently – and we have indeed been through a great deal over the last few years – to develop a new strategy. Quite rightly so, but these crises alone should not be the reason for us to adopt new food legislation, because they are history now and virtually no one is writing about them any more. What is far more important is that changes in food production and also changes in consumer behaviour are forcing us to consider how we can make food production safer, as the public has different requirements and increasing demands are being made for greater safety. In spite of the many rules already in place, it has to be said that there are many shortcomings in the way the Community has shaped food law up to now. The individual rules are each limited to a specific sector, but there is no overall plan. Community food law is especially notable for its significant deficiencies as regards coherence and legal certainty. These deficiencies are not just a matter of drafting, they are really substantial and they put at risk the efficiency and implementation of food law. That is all the more reason for welcoming the radical new concept proposed by the Commission in its White Paper, which on closer inspection turns out to be not so much a new safety concept as a new legislative concept. For the first time, general food law is being proposed at Community level, with uniform definitions and principles and without any ifs and buts. This food law is based on a comprehensive and uniform concept ranging from the producer to the consumer and it creates a coherent and transparent set of food law provisions. The consolidation process has also been used to make fundamental improvements in the quality of a great deal of the legislation up to now. I regard this consolidation of the hitherto incoherent body of rules and regulations to create consistent food law as being essential. In the context of food hygiene, we need legal bases that can easily be applied by food business operators, that permit an exchange of information between individual production levels, that correspond to the conditions of the internal market, and which are accordingly valid in all Member States, which increase the responsibility of food business operators, and which facilitate the official control activities of the authorities and guarantee the implementation of administrative measures. The regulation reforming the law is essential to achieve all this. Parliament will not agree to any change here. Encompassing the existing 17 directives in just four regulations will result in a sharper definition of the borders between food hygiene, animal health law, official food controls and thus user-friendly legal bases. This also reflects the views of the overwhelming majority of the economic sectors affected. Most producers nowadays operate on an international basis. A regulation provides a uniform framework for action with the same provisions governing all the EU Member States and accordingly, more than a directive can do, establishes fair conditions throughout the European internal market. The new food law can only take account of special national and regional situations in exceptional cases, which is something I would particularly like to emphasise. The Regulation on the hygiene of foodstuffs was significantly modified by the committee, with almost 200 amendments, and I believe that this regulation now provides a better legal basis. Many of the amendments are based on the text of the Regulation laying down general principles on food hygiene which has already been adopted, and were accordingly chiefly amendments needed for drafting reasons. There is a common thread running through all the proposals for regulations, and that is the emphasis on the primary responsibility of food producers for the safety of the foodstuffs they place on the market. The BSE crisis in particular did a great deal to demonstrate that we have failed to impose the same responsibility on those involved in primary agricultural production that we have long since expected of food producers elsewhere in the production chain. I believe that the HACCP principle is also relevant here. I am of course aware that the HACCP principle can only be applied to primary production in a few areas. However, in farms with significant numbers of animals it is possible to identify the critical points that need constant monitoring. If we apply the 'from farm to table' principle, we would also ensure that the scope for self-regulation is also fully used in primary production. The Commission's proposals suggest that HACCP should not be applied to primary production, whereas the regulations before us contain general provisions on hygiene for primary production. This implies a totally new chapter in the legislation on food hygiene. For example, if a farmer has to keep a record of measures for containing risks, that amounts in certain areas to the first step towards the application of the HACCP principle. Despite the high level of safety standards and seamless controls, production errors cannot be totally avoided. If the causes are to be established, the traceability of products must be guaranteed. The committee considers that additional labelling such as that proposed in the Commission proposal is not necessary. Although systems of labelling for traceability may vary from one EU Member State to another, they all guarantee a seamless picture of the production chain. I gathered from Commissioner Byrne's statement on Monday that product labelling is to be simplified, which suggests that the committee's proposal is actually to be adopted. In order to support production processes, the regulation provides for guidelines for good practice. As a rule these will be sectoral and national guidelines which are to be drawn up by many interested parties. The application of these guidelines is of course voluntary, and this House supports that. However, if European guidelines are drawn up for a specific sector or a specific area of production, then those guidelines would have to emerge from a general consensus and would have to reflect best available practice in Europe. That is why sectoral, national or regional guidelines should be replaced by European guidelines, because in that way we can compel food producers to apply precisely this best practice and to introduce these methods. Food production in Europe is very diverse, and it is therefore necessary for the regulations to permit a certain degree of flexibility. That is why it would be possible for there to be exceptions from the provisions of these regulations. Parliament wishes to limit these exceptions to regions with geographically difficult situations and to regions with supply difficulties, and also to traditional production methods and to supplies for local markets. The procedure for approving exceptions should be a simple one. However, Parliament cannot agree to uncontrollably broad powers for the Commission to amend the appendices of this regulation on food hygiene which define the basic framework of hygiene conditions by following the comitology route. In theory it would possible be to amend the appendices again only one day after the regulations were adopted. An arrangement of this kind would certainly not be in the spirit of good cooperation between Parliament and the Commission. However, the procedure needs to be different for the regulation on specific hygiene rules. These annexes cover detailed issues regarding hygienic trade in food, and in this case rapid implementation has to be achieved by means of amendment through the committee procedure. We have therefore taken various areas – definitions, approval of plants, labelling and so on – out of the annexes and incorporated them into the articles of the regulation, so that if any amendments are needed this can only be done by means of legislation. But I am content for other rules to be dealt with through the committee procedure. One of the main points with regard to the regulation on specific hygiene rules is the chapter on hunting. The debate on this in Parliament was very lively. We have now presented a proposal that the Commission also finds acceptable. We must of course accept that there are national peculiarities regarding the development of hunting traditions, and these have now been included in the proposals, so that we can work on the assumption that we can still guarantee game meat to be safe in health terms. This means in particular that existing traditions should be maintained. I believe that with these proposals, and with the proposed regulation on animal-health rules governing the production, placing on the market and importation of products of animal origin, we have created an important basis for improving rules governing foodstuffs. I specially want to thank Mr Kindermann for having produced such an excellent report. The provisions regarding the importation of foodstuffs are so well presented in his report that I do not need to explain any further. I consider that the regulations before us provide a good basis for extending the Regulation on official controls of foodstuffs. I am very anxious to see that because we want to deal with it as quickly as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE