Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 5 July 2000 - Strasbourg

7. Beef and beef products

  President. – The next item is the recommendation for second reading of the report (A5-0193/2000), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (Rapporteur: Mr Papayannakis).

  Papayannakis (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, the regulation which we are now examining forms part of a series of interventions designed to rectify the situation inherited from the mad cow crisis and introduce a policy to prevent such situations from arising in the future and restore consumer confidence in beef products.

The regulation therefore introduces a system comprising various techniques for identifying animals in order to guarantee traceability, i.e. the possibility of tracing every piece of meat bought by the consumer to the animal from which it derives. It is already a highly technical and unwieldy system.

Provision is also made for a beef and beef product labelling system. The product label will give the consumer rudimentary but crucial and useful information on the meat being purchased.

This endeavour started four years ago. There has been a long delay, which we have frequently criticised. We all remember the battles with the other institutions of the Union last December when we suspected that they might postpone and delay application of the regulation yet again.

We now have a situation which I shall explain in simplified terms. After the first reading in Parliament, the Council approved a common position. This common position incorporates most of the amendments made by the European Parliament. The wording of the regulation has been simplified and its application made easier. The monitoring system has been strengthened. However, the common position does not include our amendment abolishing the reference on the compulsory label on the meat to the category of animal from which the meat derives. We abolished this information in order to simplify the label, give the consumer clearer information and reduce the cost to meat companies.

The argument for keeping the reference to the category of animal is that this reference responds to consumer needs, habits and preferences, at least in certain countries of the Union. The question, therefore, is do we wish to insist on amending the current wording of the regulation? This may take us into a conciliation procedure, thereby delaying application of the regulation and the European Parliament, let me remind you, is in favour of applying the regulation at the earliest possible date and has blamed and continues to blame the other institutions of the European Union for the intolerable delay. I refer to the amendment concerning the category of animal, not a second amendment referring to minced meat, because I do not think that it meets any particular need. Minced meat is, in any case, already connected to the animal from which it derives with the arrangements which we have in the regulation and the other matters are technical and production matters and we did well not to change the wording of the regulation.

I should now like to address the matter of the Committee on the Environment, for which I have the honour of acting as rapporteur. The Committee on the Environment voted by an adequate majority to insist that the text be amended. It approved this basic amendment abolishing the reference to the category of animal. Your rapporteur is not convinced of the need, usefulness or advisability of amending the text and feels obliged, to his chagrin, to recommend the opposite approach, i.e. that we refrain from adopting any amendments and accept the common position. I trust that the wisdom of the House will find the best and safest way of ensuring that this regulation is applied quickly and solve what I hope is a temporary difference of view between the rapporteur and his committee.

  Jackson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a point of order: as chairman of the Environment Committee I would just point out that the rapporteur's job is to present the report of the committee. If Mr Papayannakis wants to express a personal opinion, he should have the freedom to do so. What he cannot do is to confuse the two.

(Applause)

  Papayannakis (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, I fully concur with what the chairman of our committee has just said. I have presented the entire discussion and the entire dispute surrounding the regulation. In the last two lines I expressed my personal opinion, with a great deal of chagrin, so as not to have to take the floor again as a speaker. For the rest, I should like to assure our chairman that I have a great deal of respect for procedure, perhaps more than many other fellow members, both on this and other matters.

  Goodwill (PPE-DE). – Mr President, this legislation on the labelling of beef has two distinct aspects. Firstly it ensures traceability of beef products. Cases of food poisoning related to beef are rare, and more often than not can be attributed to storage and preparation in the home or catering outlet, rather than to the processors. Occasionally, however, there is a problem such as the E-coli outbreak in Scotland. In this instance labelling can enable the public to be alerted without inducing panic, and facilitate the tracing back of contaminated beef to the shop, slaughterhouse or farm where the problem started.

Secondly, labelling will identify the country or countries of origin of beef. This is not to assist xenophobic consumers who wish to reject all things foreign – although there is nothing wrong with the desire to support one's own farmers who are facing unprecedented economic pressures. The BSE crisis shone a spotlight on the possible health risks associated with beef. Some countries, like France, have a whole-herd slaughter policy which may reassure consumers, despite its lack of scientific basis and a risk of underreporting. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, which has a higher level of BSE incidence at the moment, removes all animals over 30 months from the food chain, as well as adopting a whole raft of other measures.

We could argue all day about which beef is the safest, but the fact is that once labelling is in place the consumer will be able to decide. There can be no justification for the continuation of the illegal French ban on British beef if it is clearly labelled. In fact those in France who have studied the subject in depth may well decide to buy British as the safest and tastiest option.

I will now comment on the amendments. The inclusion of category is unnecessary, costly and potentially confusing to consumers. Most housewives do not know the difference between a heifer and a steer. A bony Holstein steer would be in the same category as a champion Charolais but that prime animal's twin sister would be in a different category solely because of its sex. Clearly this is a ridiculous situation. The listing of category imposes costs on farmers and butchers, and at the same time would give consumers irrelevant or misleading information. It could also devalue some categories such as young bulls, as supermarkets rationalise the categories they stock. If France wants to continue with its scheme alone, then I would not want to stand in its way. This is a subsidiarity issue.

The amendment on Article 14 would prevent the confusing situation where minced beef – marketed for example, in Austria, Mr Fischler – which was derived from Polish animals imported live into Austria, could be labelled ‘prepared in Austria’. I am not sure that Austrian farmers would like that to happen. Without this amendment this potentially misleading suggestion could encourage more live imports, with obvious animal welfare implications.

We are working on a very tight timescale on this legislation, which is due to come into effect on 1 September. It would, therefore, be irresponsible of Parliament to adopt amendments which could not be accepted by the Council. There is no time for conciliation. I do not subscribe to the argument that Parliament should abdicate its constitutional right to improve this proposal because others have failed to initiate the legislative process in time. We now have a new French presidency – I do not know if anyone is there representing them – but I commend to the Council the amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment with a large majority. Could I ask through you, Mr President, that the Council or, failing that, the Commissioner, makes a statement to Parliament? Do you think that you can secure an agreement, based on the five amendments adopted in committee, which will both respect the views of Parliament and deliver this legislation on time as the first major achievement of the French presidency?

  Whitehead (PSE). – Mr President, this proposal has a long history. I can understand why the rapporteur and Mr Papayannakis are weary of further controversy. However, we are almost at the end. As the rapporteur, he has quite properly had to tell the House that the Environment Committee voted by a substantial majority – I think 33 votes to 13 – in favour of the excision of the provisions relating to category of animal.

We have, on the committee, made a number of compromises, as regards both the timetable and the substance. The Committee has always kept a clear priority and has insisted upon it both to the Council and to the Commission: namely to have the sharpest, best-defined route of traceability on safety grounds that we can get for mince as well as other forms of beef. It was for this reason that it threw out at first reading the superfluous requirements about maturation times, much as chefs might have wanted them, and category of animal, which did nothing for traceability, added cost, and increased the disaffection of many Member States and of those who will have to implement this proposal.

As a result of that, we thought the matter was resolved. Indeed, as Mr Papayannakis has said, there have been counter-concessions from the Commission. Now, to our amazement, category of animal is back, and once again the Environment Committee has voted to remove it. The Commission knows why. It knows we cannot be bullied with threats that our timetable will slip. We have made concessions including a full month’s delay on the implementation of the second phase of this proposal already. We have done that with a good grace.

I urge the House to reaffirm its position at first reading and to exclude a form of compulsory category labelling which is entirely optional for Member States, – a form of labelling we should point out which we do not have in detail. We have to surrender to the secret harmonies of comitology if we are going to leave it to Commission to advance the precise definitions. We are not prepared to do that. We want traceability, we want surveillance, we want this proposal and we want it quickly. We want the best and most economic route to achieve it and Amendments Nos 3 and 5 do that. The various amendments on mince add to surveillance and traceability in the way we propose.

Conciliation, Mr Papayannakis, does not take very long. It consists of two words from the Commissioner this afternoon: ‘We accept.’ Let us hear them.

IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVAN
Vice-President

  Olsson (ELDR). – (SV) Mr President, there is no need to repeat what my colleagues Mr Goodwill and Mr Whitehead have said regarding the significant agreement that we have reached in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Allow me nevertheless to say that, after what has happened over the last few days when we have had further cases of BSE in France, it is clear that we still have a long way to go before we have a completely safe market as far as beef is concerned. There is only one way to regain the consumers' trust and that is by guaranteeing the quality of the products.

If we had an ideal world in the EU we would have had a foodstuffs authority which could have checked and ensured that everyone behaved according to the rules. Then the quality of the meat would have been to a large extent the same throughout the Union, and it would at least have maintained the EU standard everywhere. If we had also been able to ensure that everyone followed the rules regarding transportation, we would not need to run the risk of animals suffering during transit. Now, however, we need a system that involves stating where the animals come from, where they were born, where they were reared and where they were slaughtered. In this way the consumer is provided with information regarding how the animal may have fared and whether it may have been subjected to long journeys in transit.

Mr President, in conclusion, the most important thing is that we obtain a system which means that by looking at a label on the meat we can see where it comes from, and that it is then possible to trace back through the complete foodstuffs chain to the original producer. This is where we need to get to.

  Staes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance are delighted with the Council’s common position. In our opinion, it marks a great step forward and an actual victory for this Parliament.

However, I would still like to point out the difference between traceability on the one hand and consumer confidence on the other. In my opinion, traceability is a technicality which can be identified and demonstrated thanks to the numerical code or bar code, but even consumers cannot possibly decipher or interpret these codes. What matters is that traceability is effective and efficient, not only to protect the consumer, but also the whole meat chain. After all, in the event of a crisis or scandal, traceability allows you to identify the problem straight away. In this way, we can prevent the entire meat industry from going down the drain because of one isolated criminal act or incident of carelessness.

Consumer confidence however, requires more than traceability. In my view, confidence in a product can be instilled by providing the consumer with reliable, but above all comprehensible information on the quality of the product they intend to buy. It seems to me that indicating the animal category can most definitely enhance consumer confidence, provided this is done in an understandable manner. I therefore regret that a large majority of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rejected this component and eventually deleted the category.

At first reading, my Group also called for labelling the breed and region of origin of the animal involved. It saddens me that our request did not survive this hurdle. I would, however, urge the meat industry not to adopt a defensive stance in this dossier, but to be proactive instead. I believe that this will greatly benefit them and can also boost their returns.

  Fiebiger (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, the rules governing the voluntary labelling system provided for in the 1999 EU regulation expire on 31 August. The Council regulation before us must be adopted to avoid a legal vacuum arising. The agreement reached by the EU Agriculture Ministers on a Europe-wide beef labelling system was not such a major achievement. The work in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development was in fact much more demanding than the result before us. The content of all the measures approved is to be modified so that proof of meat’s origin is valid as a guarantee in order to apply environmental control procedures and if necessary impose sanctions.

The Community labelling system quite rightly aims to enhance transparency of production and marketing conditions for beef, and in particular to improve certainty as to its origin. Higher product costs cannot be ruled out, as the cost of applying the system will be passed on to the consumer.

The incalculable risk as regards food quality will not be dramatically reduced in this way, as the information provided is not primarily intended for the consumer. The last 16 years, since the first outbreak of mad cow disease, have demonstrated the importance of production for consumer confidence. The most effective measure is to strengthen production in the region of origin, which is more justifiable both environmentally and economically speaking.

  Souchet (UEN). – (FR) Mr President, we stressed at first reading what a complete anomaly it is that, 14 years after the emergence of BSE, the European Union still has no labelling system giving consumers the information they need.

Luckily, some Member States, including France since 1996, have taken unilateral initiatives and responsibility for designing national systems which have proven to be transparent, efficient and flexible and which should have been authenticated.

Having failed to do the same, the House has, at least, adopted some of their ideas, most of which, we were pleased to see, have been incorporated in the common position. The main thing is that consumers need to be able to make sense of it. Giving consumers information without confusing them means including important references explicitly, with secondary information accessible at the checkout via the barcode. An overloaded label would not promote food safety, it would just represent an additional cost to our SMEs and would really distort competition if there were no equivalent requirement for third country produce.

We also need to move quickly and, in the interest of producers and consumers alike, ensure that there are not any legal gaps. We therefore consider it important not to question the balance which we have reached, as our rapporteur has recommended, unless we want to set off on a long conciliation procedure. But not questioning the balance in the regulation also implies that we must be extremely vigilant when it comes to the implementing regulation; most importantly, the categories and list of products and sectors to which this applies must be clearly defined.

We need to show that we are logical, fair, flexible and that we know where European interests lie. We need to take account of all operators of every size, especially small and medium-sized operators, of whom there is an abundance in this sector, scattered throughout our countries, creating jobs and often using animals or cuts from different origins. We need to take great care not to impose unnecessary additional costs on these companies. For example, the reference to the category makes no sense for prepared products, especially kebabs, and we need to be flexible in our arrangements for meat for the catering trade, otherwise our restaurants will all go out and buy Brazilian meat.

So let us respect the balance in the regulation and introduce the necessary flexibility in the implementing regulation, so that we can preserve the interests of European producers and inform European consumers at one and the same time.

  Martinez (TDI). – (FR) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, having done so on 16 December 1999, we are addressing the problem of identifying cattle and the problem of labelling. And all because, for the past 14 years and, officially, for the past 4 years, there has been a zoonosis, i.e. a disease which can be transmitted from cows, in this case British cows, to humans.

Not knowing how to cure this disease and not having had the will to prevent it when we could have done so from 1989 onwards, we are now reduced to bidding to reassure the consumer. Just as the Americans invented happy pills in the 1950s, we have invented consumer sedatives, i.e. labels. As soon as consumers are worried, anxious or afraid, we give them a label. We put labels on tobacco for them, we put labels on chocolate for them, and when they are upset because they no longer have any cocoa, we put labels on GMOs for them, not that this prevents genetically engineered soya, cotton and tomatoes from arriving by the boatload. We put labels on wine for them, not that this prevents bogus port from South Africa from landing in our ports and, finally, we put labels on beef for them!

I must admit, Commissioner Fischler, that you have slammed on all the brakes – if I may put it thus – both skilfully and in bad faith in order to delay labelling. But unable to delay it all the time, you decided to drown it and the draft regulation has overloaded the label to the point at which it is illegible. You have even arranged to add the approval numbers of the slaughterhouse and cutting plant, all of which is incomprehensible to the consumer, of course, who does not have the equipment to read the barcode. And in the case of kebabs, stews, sautés and ready meals, pieces of meat may come from the whole of France or the whole of Europe. So with a calf born in France, fattened in Italy and slaughtered in Ireland, the label will be a real geography lesson!

As a result, the meat wholesalers, the SMEs referred to by Mr Souchet, have denounced the increased costs and, at the same time, compulsory labelling has given us an insight into the curiosities of the meat market: 40% of beef derives from animals which have done the rounds of Europe; when you buy a steak at the butcher's, little do you know that it has travelled 3000 kilometres, taking in 4 countries on the way: the country in which it was born, the country in which it was raised, the country in which it was slaughtered and the country in which it is consumed. In my country, 1.5 million animals a year take a trip via Italy and Spain.

So in that case, what do you put on the label? The whole itinerary? Or just ‘Origin: European Union’? But if we put ‘Origin: European Union’, that conceals the fact that the meat may derive from an English cow, riddled from top to bottom with a prion courtesy of their gracious ultraliberal majesties, Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

So, today, we are offered a compromise. We are told that labels will state the origin of the animal and the category: is it a calf, a heifer, a cow or a bull? But what we want is a compromise which will make life easier for SMEs, for small companies, not that any of this need prevent us, Commissioner, fellow members, from taking brief stock.

It all started with milk quotas back in 1984. In order to increase their yield, the British stuffed their cows with bonemeal. To save money, they lowered the cooking temperature of the bonemeal and the prion survived and contaminated their cattle. Without free movement, it would have stopped there, but with no frontiers, they contaminated Portuguese and French cattle and we have known about it, even here, since 1986.

José Happart, a Socialist, and I have been warning of the risk of a zoonosis since 1989. But the Maastricht Treaty had to be ratified, so nothing was said and the truth was hidden. A committee of inquiry chaired by Mr Böge was set up, but the Amsterdam Treaty had to be ratified and nothing was said. The Commission was not held to account, Mr Fischler, and for 14 years, nothing was done. When five German Länder wanted to protect their consumers, you instituted infringement proceedings against them. The moral of this tale, quite apart from the labelling saga, is that it is the nation states that have protected their consumers. For its part, the Commission has protected free movement. Real subsidiarity means ensuring that consumers, with the help of their country, can each protect themselves.

The label only comes along when the fork is poised; but the best solution would be to label when the pitchfork is poised. The intermediate solution lies between fork and pitchfork, i.e. at the frontier, the only place where animals can be protected against unreasonable transport and consumers can be protected.

  Farage (EDD). – Mr President, yesterday we heard Mr Chirac set out his objectives for the French presidency. In his conclusion he said “Europe will be dynamic if we make it loved by those it serves”. This is the sweeping rhetoric that occupies the high ground but the detail of the debate today occupies the low ground. It is precisely this sort of detailed, petty interference that drives the people served by Europe to distraction. If anything was more calculated to make Europe unloved it is its determination to control every nook and cranny of our lives.

We all, I am sure, have letters saying that these regulations are impracticable, cumbersome, costly and far too complex. Above all, my correspondents tell me that they are fed up with the EU's mania for bombarding the consumer with information. Soon labels will no longer suffice. If we keep going at this rate, shopkeepers will have to issue owners' manuals with every pound of minced beef – not, of course, that we are allowed to use pounds any more.

Perhaps even Macdonald's might be forced to protest. I know from my short experience here that nothing I say and nothing that involves common sense will have the slightest impact because, like a mad elephant out of control, this legislation will crash on regardless.

I will make a prediction. When this legislation finally goes through we will hear paeans of self-congratulation. Everybody involved will tell themselves how jolly hard they worked. Well, they may be pleased but they certainly will not be loved by the people of Europe. Mr Chirac is going to be disappointed. The people are despairing.

  Raschhofer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously.

The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.

  Roth-Behrendt (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, may I remind you that we have been talking about beef labelling since 1997. At that time, we fought manfully – and womanfully! – against the Council, shoulder to shoulder with the Commission. It could be exactly the same again today. I remember it well – things were just as heated as in the BSE days. But we tried this here in Parliament ten years ago, and that is why I want to clearly remind some of you again that labelling has nothing to do with the safety of a product.

There are two very different issues here. One is the safety of a product, and the only products we should allow on the European market are safe products and those that involve no risk for consumers. The other issue is consumer information and the consumer’s right to choose. You can only exercise your freedom of choice if you are well informed. This applies to the origin of tomatoes just as much as it does to preservatives or colouring agents in food, and it also applies to which beef or meat products in general I would like to buy, because I am sure you will not be surprised to hear that I would of course like to go further. I would like to see labelling of all meat products and not just beef products. I am sure that Mr Fischler will agree with me on this.

I can understand Mr Papayannakis, our rapporteur, when he says that this House has pressed for this legislation to come into force. And when he says that we in this House have brought forward the date it is to come into force. And that now, if we are to maintain our credibility, we must strive to enforce this legislation as quickly as possible. He is quite right! I understand that, but I nevertheless voted for the amendments in committee and will do the same again in this Chamber tomorrow.

One thing is certain: I do not intend to be held hostage by the Council. If the Council, in its infinite wisdom, which is often a mystery to me, believes that it has to amend the common position so that it is not the same as the text debated at first reading and the text Parliament approved with the Commission’s agreement, and if the Council therefore makes a decision at the initiative of one Member State and with the somewhat reluctant agreement of other Member States, than that really is something new for us!

The categories of animal added are also something new for us. I might even have been prepared to say, fine, so be it. But I would like to know just what these categories are. So my attitude towards the Commission, which has otherwise become positively affectionate in recent years, is rather more critical in this respect. I would have liked to know what categories you have in mind, and I might then still have been willing to say ‘OK’. But I am not going to play the dangerous game of saying that I agree to the categories and then find out in about six months’ time that categories have been adopted under the committee procedure that make me shake my head in disbelief.

That is why tomorrow, in common I hope with the majority of this House, I will be voting – as I did in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection – to delete these categories. As Mr Whitehead said, it need not take long. We do not need a Conciliation Committee – the Council and the Commission can simply accept Parliament’s amendments, and then the job is done.

  Attwooll (ELDR). – Mr President, Commissioner, in speaking previously to this House I have pointed out that there is a tension in the proposed regulation between ensuring traceability for public health purposes and providing useful consumer information. I am grateful for recent assurances from Commissioner Byrne that the new European Food Agency will consider how such information can best be provided.

Making it compulsory to include the category of animal on the label is not justified on public health grounds, nor is it obvious why it should be obligatory for the consumer to have this information. The Environment Committee's amendment makes it clear that it could be provided under the voluntary scheme where there is a demand. Further, if the labelling scheme in relation to category were to be implemented, as the Commission has earlier suggested, it could add 8 to 10% to production costs. In my own country this would mean GBP 45 – 55 or EUR 70 – 90 per animal without any benefit in return and, as Mr Goodwill has already said, the scheme could have the effect of reducing the market price of certain categories of cattle, particularly of young bulls. I very much hope that Parliament will follow the Environment Committee's lead in removing category from the compulsory scheme and that the Commission and Council too will agree not to impose this additional unnecessary burden on producers and consumers alike.

  Hudghton (Verts/ALE). – In previous debates here I have supported the principle of having a clear set of rules for appropriate labelling information on beef and beef products. My belief is still that our beef production industry, as well as the consumer, has everything to gain from the customer confidence which a sensible compulsory labelling scheme can provide.

Of course, we must have clear information permitting full traceability from farm to plate. There is no doubt or controversy about that, but controversy has surrounded the proposal that category of animal be included. In judging the value of label information, I believe that its relevance to food safety must be foremost in our minds. In a recent exchange of views within our political Group here in Strasbourg, Commissioner Byrne and his cabinet officials stated quite clearly that there was no food safety benefit arising from the categorisation proposal. I cannot support its inclusion.

In relation to country or Member State of origin, could I ask Commissioner Fischler to clarify whether, apart from the compulsory information that we are discussing here, information regarding the area of origin, such as Scotland or the Orkney Islands for example, can be displayed prominently on a voluntary basis?

  Berlato (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to the many negative effects of mad cow disease, one positive effect is the fact that it has induced the European Union and the Member States to adopt more vigilant, detailed legislation to ensure food safety and protect honest producers in the strategically important beef sector.

It is a pity that it takes scandals such as this or the dioxins in chickens issue to speed up safeguard and prevention initiatives, but better late than never!

It has become apparent that the serious difficulties experienced by the entire sector during the periods of greatest crisis caused by mad cow disease were, apart from the direct effects of the disease, primarily due to the lack of confidence between consumers and beef producers and sellers which ensued. The situation was not improved by the dissemination of false information.

We have learned from this experience that it is essential to promote all initiatives which consolidate a stable relationship of confidence between consumers and producers and those who sell food products in general.

Although the protection of consumer health is by far the most important criterion, it cannot be our sole objective in establishing an efficient system for the identification and registration of bovine animals during the production and fattening stage and a labelling system based on objective criteria during the marketing stage. It is important to understand that all initiatives which protect honest European Community producers – and they are without a doubt the great majority of producers – need to be promoted. All the Community producers are calling for well-defined but not oppressive regulations. In other words, we must guard against suffocating the healthy part of our agricultural sector with bureaucracy, which is frequently much more damaging than any disease.

I will conclude by pointing out that there is no point in adopting stringent legislation if it does not provide an efficient supervision system which rewards honest producers and penalises those whose improper conduct jeopardises the future of an entire sector which is of primary importance for the European economy.

  Schnellhardt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, beef labelling was actually conceived as a quick way of regaining the public’s confidence in beef after a string of crises and scandals. But it has since turned into an almost unending saga. Whenever the regulation might cease to apply, Parliament is called upon to act quickly to prevent a legal vacuum arising. There have been two deadlines, first December 1999 and now the present deadline of 31 August 2000.

Commissioner, given the time periods involved, you cannot seriously call on Parliament not to adopt any amendments. We want a workable system, and we have always said that. As the proposal before us does not guarantee that, it is not just our right, it is our duty as Members of the European Parliament to adopt amendments.

When I then hear that in Italy, for example, the technical requirements for this system are not even in place yet, and that the same applies in other countries, then I wonder why there is all this rush if the system has not been implemented anyway. I would welcome some comments from the Commissioner on that point.

The Commission’s proposal will lead to our having to deal with the system again before long. The Commission perhaps reacted somewhat hastily in the wake of the BSE crisis, and now we are into brinkmanship again. I cannot help feeling that the 2003 deadline that was thought up in December 1998 is now occupying the Commission’s thought processes again. I believe that you can achieve implementation of this regulation by 1 September if you accept our amendments. You will not achieve it if you still insist on including category of animal, which we have already touched upon several times today. That has nothing to do with information for the public, it is just a quality issue, and does not belong in this regulation. Commissioner, please accept the amendments and we will then have something workable in place by 1 September.

  Kindermann (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, many aspects of the common position we have here reflect Parliament’s position at first reading, and this demonstrates the Council’s willingness to work with Parliament in order to achieve a positive and rapid outcome in this area, which is so important for European consumers. I would have liked to simply approve the common position without further ado. However, I find one point that has already been mentioned several times enormously difficult – category of animal. This comes under compulsory labelling, where it has no place to be. Category of animal really does not assist the regulation’s objective of guaranteeing meat traceability. I therefore support the adoption of Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5.

The Council will now have to remove the provisions relating to category of animal at its meeting in mid-July if it does not want to risk the regulation not coming into force on 1 September this year. Secondly, there is Amendment No 4 on minced beef, which relates to the last part of Article 14, first paragraph, beginning “and origin”. I am afraid I cannot follow this either. In my view, this amendment lacks precision. How is ‘origin’ to be defined here? Does it refer to where the animal was born or where it was fattened, or both, and who is responsible for labelling here? Exactly how will origin be indicated? None of this is clearly worded and I see a risk that the Council will refuse point blank to accept this amendment, so that we will end up with a conciliation procedure, which will in turn further delay the entry into force of the regulation. This is not in the interests of consumers, and I therefore call on the House to reject Amendments Nos 4 and 6.

  Pesälä (ELDR). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, the Council has adopted the European Parliament’s amendments on the labelling of beef products. There has been fruitful interinstitutional cooperation, and the codecision procedure has shown its strength. The result is a victory for consumers, and not just them, but the whole beef sector chain: the producers, the processing industry and the organisations representing the beef trade. This regulation will make it possible to trace the origin of meat, and even according to a reasonable timetable. After EU enlargement this sort of system will be vital for consumers and producers. To tell the truth, we could not have waited any longer for this system to be put into practice. Now it depends on the Member States whether the practice of labelling is adopted in the hoped for manner. I also hope consumer organisations will give their strong support to the implementation of the provisions in practice.

  Hyland (UEN). – Mr President, the introduction of the EU beef labelling is a further step on the road to traceability and in the present climate a prerequisite for consumer protection and public health.

As I have said on many previous occasions in this House, farmers are unfortunately the innocent victims of circumstances beyond their control. I come from a country which exports over 90% of its entire beef production and quality and consumer satisfaction have always been a priority. We must take steps to ensure that labelling does not result in a renationalisation of the food sector. Already there is some evidence that this is happening. I welcome the Commission's assurance that any distortion of trade which might arise as a result of these labelling measures will be dealt with.

Labelling, however, needs to be sensible. Over-description would only lead to confusion and is unnecessary. The consumer must be able to see at a glance the certificate of origin which is the assurance of product safety.

  Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, that went quicker than I thought. The BSE crisis, and later on the dioxin crisis, focused our attention on the safety of our food. In addition, the European consumer has become more critical and outspoken over the past decades. Politicians need to take this into consideration. After all, there are huge interests at stake: the certainty and safety of our primary products, and hence consumer confidence. In the coming months, too, we should therefore be looking carefully at the White Paper on food safety. Today’s regulations are a direct result of the recommendations of the BSE inquiry at the time, in which integral chain management, i.e. the ‘from-stable-to-stable’ principle, and with it the ultimate traceability of our primary raw materials, was established.

The Commission proposal within the context of labelling beef follows on from temporary legislation dating back to 1997. It aims to introduce reliable and transparent identification and registration regulations for beef, as well as labelling for beef. This should also enhance consumer confidence in the quality of beef and benefit market stability. Meat should remain traceable, whether at the production or sales stage.

An important idea which the Council has adopted from the EP in its common position is to bring forward the date when the labelling regulation comes into effect. The label should contain information on the animal’s region of origin, where it is born, fattened up and slaughtered. What is new is that the Council now also considers it important to mention the animal category from which the meat originates. I admit that making this compulsory could be considered normal from the point of view of the consumer, but this is not yet the case in the Netherlands, where this suggestion is met with a great deal of protest. I do not call for compulsory labelling, but for labelling on a voluntary basis. In this context, I am convinced that butchers can meet all the provisions of this proposal in a very simple manner, for example by placing a sign in their shops.

  Sacconi (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, with tomorrow’s vote, Parliament will take an initial step towards defining a legislative framework intended to win back consumer confidence in the quality of foodstuffs on the market in the European Union. This goal can only be achieved through a wider strategy such as that outlined in the White Paper on food safety, and we too must make every effort to speed up its practical implementation.

This directive will ensure not only that the meat on our tables can be traced back to its origins but also that the consumer is provided with clear, essential information. The mandatory labelling to be affixed to packaging will provide consumers with the all the information they need in order to be able to make an informed decision about what to buy: therefore, a limited amount of clear, effective information needs to be included if we are to help consumers and not make their life more complicated. For this reason and because of the considerable opposition which appears to have arisen to the listing of categories, I have decided to support the amendments put forward by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy.

In the context of this debate, I feel that I must stress once again the extremely sensitive nature of this proposal, and call upon all the Community institutions to act responsibly in order to make it operative as soon as possible and avoid legal gaps.

Parliament has done its part and will continue to do so. Let the Commission and the Council do theirs! Mr Whitehead has already pointed them in the right direction.

  Busk (ELDR). – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, guaranteeing public health is the objective of one of today’s most important areas of legislation. This is something to which this regulation will contribute, making traceability from farm to plate as effective as possible, as well as compulsory. At the same time, European consumers have the right to clear and easily understandable information, so that they know where the meat they are eating comes from. I am certain that the Council and Parliament can reach a good compromise on minced meat, in so far as Parliament adopts Amendments 4 and 6 which guarantee consumers information about where the minced meat comes from and when it was produced. I would ask all colleagues to vote in favour of Amendment 6 which Karl Erik Olsson and I have tabled with a view to making it compulsory for minced meat to bear a label stating the date when it was produced. Minced meat involves a much greater bacteriological risk for consumers than larger pieces of beef, so the production date is a very important piece of information. It is good that categories have been removed. The Council’s common position, together with Parliament’s six amendments, constitute legislation of benefit to agriculture and consumers in the EU.

  Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, it is not the label that counts. We all understand that expression, but what counts here really is the label – and I am not talking about haute couture! Beef labelling is an important stage in the process of rebuilding consumer confidence. I note that despite the protracted preliminary discussions not all EU Member States have recorded every last animal on their computers. Yet the compulsory labelling system is supposed to take force in all Member States as from 1 September 2000, thus finally replacing the voluntary system.

The question for consumers will be this: what information can we expect? Where was the animal born? In the EU, in a third country, at which farm, in what region? What does country of origin mean, or perhaps even source country? And then there is the debate about categories. Should I buy a sucking calf, a normal calf or a heifer today? As I come from a farming background myself and there is nothing I more earnestly want for farmers than stable prices, I believe that we should create legal bases that are underpinned by consensus. We should not make the legislation unnecessarily complicated. We are all concerned about public health and consumer protection.

So as from 1 September 2000 we will have labelling, and as from 1 January 2002 it will be extremely comprehensive. The beef chain from producer to consumer can be very long, and the supply chains in Member States vary widely. Yet I do not think that cattle headed for the slaughterhouse are really such great tourists. However, strict criteria must also apply to imports from third countries. By way of conclusion, let me say that I once learnt that top athletes’ nutrition programmes should include meat. Our top athletes’ eating habits have a great impact on health and performance. I hope that we can rebuild confidence and that people will once more become great meat-eaters.

  Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, the report by Mr Papayannakis we are discussing is an important tool to improve consumer protection and increase consumer confidence in food in Europe. The committee took an important decision in rejecting the category of animal labelling proposal. The category of animal – heifer, cow, bull, bullock, young bull, calf – will not provide the consumer with any extra information, as the differences within categories might be greater than those between them. On the other hand, the compulsory labelling of category would increase the production costs of fresh meat products by what could be a large percentage figure, which, of course, would be passed on to the consumer. On this there is agreement between beef producers, the meat processing industry, retailers and consumer organisations. And now the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has arrived at the same conclusion. Category labelling must not be compulsory, but this can happen on a national basis, as, for example, has been the wish in France. Perhaps in a country the size of France there is so much beef that it is possible to label products rationally. That is not the case in my country.

Another thorny problem relating to the proposal is labelling showing the origin of the meat. The proposal is for the labelling system to be introduced in two stages. In the first stage there would just be slaughter information. In cases where the animal was bred and reared in another country, the information might be totally misleading for the consumer, and in countries where stage two is now in force the situation as it is could only deteriorate. For example, Finland’s national beef labelling system also now includes information on where the animal was bred and reared. It is therefore to be hoped that, on the basis of the current defining implementation regulation, the beef sector could be flexible enough to come round to establishing the two-stage labelling system.

The basis of this discussion is consumer protection, especially with regard to the BSE crisis we lived through in Europe. The matter being discussed is an important tool, but the compulsory labelling of beef products and the gradual switch to labels showing the origin of the meat do not serve this purpose.

  Klaß (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am sure there are still many more questions. You can of course always revisit everything, but I think that we now need labelling of beef and beef products as a matter of urgency, by which I mean as from September this year and not as from January next year. We have discussed this at length in committee. As regards guarantees of origin, great progress has already been made as a result of improved transparency, and it was possible to make a positive impact. There are many regional programmes, for example in my home region of Rheinland-Pfalz, and these demonstrate that this is feasible and have led the way here. It is not so long since farmers and meat-processing plants were threatened with annihilation, and it has only been through a combination of comprehensive information and strategically sound and effective marketing measures that it has been possible to rebuild consumer confidence to some extent. We must not allow this success to be undermined by deferring the introduction of labelling, which would be a step backwards.

Designation of origin is particularly important for consumers. The preparatory work our farmers have done on labelling has been good and clear. We have made good progress with beef labelling in Germany. In this context I would like to ask you, Commissioner, what progress the other Member States have made. We certainly need to keep an eye on products imported from third countries. These should be clearly recognisable as such when they are sold. But what about those sometimes excessively detailed descriptions? They are confusing. For example, how many consumers know what a heifer is, who would be interested in that, and why is it important?

The Commission has not yet clearly presented its proposals on category here, but I think it will have to adopt a simple and clear approach. Descriptions such as ‘veal’ or ‘beef’ are sufficient, and anyone who wants more information should also be able to obtain it.

  Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I fully subscribe to and take as read what has been said so far in relation to the identification and traceability of beef and all beef products. Yesterday the Committee on the Environment voted by 37 votes to 13 for the five amendments before us today – a clear, decisive vote right across this House from colleagues in all different groups.

I would particularly like to mention the category issue here which I suppose effectively means getting back to the first reading position on this. I was incensed when, as late as yesterday, the Commission could not advise us as to exactly what would be involved in 'category'. We are effectively being asked to buy the bovine equivalent of a pig in a poke. This is not acceptable. I would say to the Commissioner, please accept our amendments in relation to this area. There is no need to confuse and mislead the consumers of Europe on a compulsory basis, because the voluntary labelling system which will be driven by competition, pride in product and consumer demand will add anything that a compulsory category label might otherwise require.

I am still confused about the situation in relation to mince. If we are now going to insist on country of origin for mince, why cannot we have country of origin for the larger pieces of beef from 1 September, or whenever? I am not quite sure where we stand on that but we will be advised.

The French situation is amazing. Only yesterday the services of the French Prime Minister wrote to every French MEP in this House – all 87 of them across the House – telling them to vote against all the amendments. What does that tell us about political interference from the top in France? What is that saying about French beef production and protectionism? What is it saying about the Anglo-French beef issue? If the French want to label beef they can do so voluntarily. At the moment they only label 50% of their beef, yet they want to insist on compulsory labelling under category for all of us. I do not understand the political interference and the real message from France, and we should get to the bottom of it.

  Ayuso González (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, this proposed regulation and derogation of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 has a first heading, which nobody is talking about, which provides for a system of identification and registration for beef based on earmarks, passports and computerised support which guarantee its traceability.

The second heading establishes an obligatory system of labelling of meat and two stages for its implementation.

In the voluntary period for application of Regulation (EC) No 820/97, 36 specifications have been approved in Spain in order to put it into practice, and I can assure you that this has given the consumer confidence and contributed to the recuperation of consumption, which dropped considerably as a result of mad cow disease.

I am therefore pleased that this Regulation has been adopted. However, with regard to the content of the labelling – which let us not forget is directed at the consumer – it must be said that it is frankly excessive and that indications are proposed which provide little in the way of food safety and traceability, since this is guaranteed by the measures proposed in the first heading and, of course, is not what most matters to the consumer.

The indication of categories is not necessary at all. Furthermore, this indication of categories may lead to confusion and problems, with regard to the age of slaughter of animals and the protected geographical indications, registered in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2081/92, because in this case it is obligatory to introduce categories, and the definitions do not coincide with those which are proposed now. Unless an agreement is reached – a consensus – in the management committee on the 14th.

What matters most to consumers, particularly in the light of the recent food crises, is to know where the animal was born and where and how it has been fed throughout its life. Naturally, the registration number of the slaughterhouse offers them little or nothing in terms of the information they require. Furthermore, this Regulation lays down obligatory minimum requirements and there is always the possibility of voluntary optional labelling.

  Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would also like to concentrate on this issue of category of animal labelling.

The original proposal called for labelling as steer, heifer or young bull, which would be sexual discrimination. But recently I was staggered when the Commission – just as Mrs Doyle has said – reported it had not finally decided on the precise terminology! This effectively means they are asking Parliament to give them a blank cheque to determine what category of animal means after we have voted on whether or not to include it. This is very sloppy, very amateur and unacceptable as a way to treat this House. It is not even a food safety issue. It is extra bureaucracy and red tape – which is probably why my own government in the UK has supported it. But it is not in the interests of consumers, nor of the industry and, specifically, it is not in the interest of small abattoirs which would have the greatest difficulty in dealing with it.

I therefore ask the House to support the deletion of category of animal as a compulsory labelling requirement, just as it did on the first reading. If countries wish to include it voluntarily that is a matter for them. Assuming we vote for deletion, I would ask the Commission to take note that we shall not be moved on this issue. So they know what they have to do. Finally I ask the Commission and the Council to take note that we welcome the principle of labelling beef by country of origin and that we call on the French presidency to set an example by making an immediate commitment to accept all beef so labelled from all EU countries and let the consumer decide.

  Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Commissioner, can I first of all say I very much welcome this opportunity to follow the debate on this issue, but quite frankly I think it has tried our patience for a long time and most of us would like to see it resolved as soon as possible.

We have to ask ourselves what we are trying to achieve and whose fears we are trying to allay. There is no doubt that consumers are tremendously concerned and I think we have to be able to allay that concern so that consumers can feel confident that the food they buy, anywhere in the European Union, will be fully traceable and good for whoever purchases it.

For that we need an effective system of traceability and control that will restore confidence. I come from an agricultural background and it seems to me that what you need to control is the whole life span of the animal from the moment it is born to the time it is slaughtered. If you can achieve that then you will go a long way to allaying the consumers' fears. You can put in controls that will be so bureaucratic that they just will not work, so we have to concentrate on what is workable.

Categorising beef as steers, bullocks or heifers will not do anything to allay the fears of the consumer. This is taking foolishness to the extreme and I ask you to reflect and take on board the views of the committee and the view of this Parliament on this particular point.

  Fiori (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, since the issue of Regulation 820 in 1997, we have been discussing rebuilding a relationship between the consumer and the production world, and I have to say that a great deal has been achieved on both sides. Much work has been done to ensure that the consumer is in possession of the correct information.

That said, I am briefly going to return to some of the issues raised by my fellow Members, each of which illustrated the situation in their own country.

In Italy, selling unspecified adult cattle on the market would mean suppressing a sensibility which is linked to our cultural and food traditions, and so we would find ourselves in quite a difficult situation. Apart from anything else, considering that the price per kilogram of a cow carcass is considerably lower than that of a bullock carcass and even lower than that of a heifer, it would be difficult to justify the different sales prices to the consumer, who will naturally buy the unspecified adult meat out of ignorance.

Therefore, we are drawing up a law giving the consumer the right to know what he is buying and at what price, according to principles of transparency, clarity and information. The work on the traceability of all the information regarding the animal’s country of provenance and country of birth and, in particular, where the animal was fattened, is therefore excellent.

Indeed, we would like the traceability criteria to be extended to minced beef, which is becoming a very popular product.

We feel that a precise reference to the point of slaughter and to the provenance of the minced beef would contribute to maintaining this relationship of trust that we are building between producer and consumer.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the second reading in this House is taking place so quickly is a clear sign that all of you, and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Papayannakis, regard this subject, a very important one for consumers, as a key priority and that it is indeed your objective that compulsory labelling should come into force on time on 1 September. I would therefore first of all like to sincerely thank the rapporteur and everyone who cooperated with him for the excellent and rapid progress that has been made with this.

Timing has always been vital in this area, and it still is. You all know that the introduction of the compulsory labelling system had to be deferred last December because agreement could not be reached within the time frame available. This deferral expires on 31 August, which in practice means that it runs out at the end of this month, because Parliament does not sit in August and no further sittings can be called.

We must all ensure that the pledge we made to all European beef consumers and also to producers and processors is respected. In order to avoid further postponement or, even worse, a legal vacuum on labelling, we must therefore come to a final decision this month.

Before I talk about the amendments tabled for tomorrow’s vote, I would like to make a couple of brief comments about the Council common position approved by the Council on 6 June. As you know, I pressed for an informal trialogue on the issue of the legal basis. This took place on 3 May. The Members participating in that meeting also asked for appropriate explanations regarding the draft of the Council common position.

Once a number of further changes to the text requested by Parliament had been made, it was possible to reach an agreement based on which the following Agriculture Council approved the Council common position. This was then formally transmitted to Parliament in mid-June together with the Commission’s communication. This goes to show how well the codecision process could actually function on agricultural matters. Despite the shortage of time, the Council produced what I regard as a workable compromise taking account of the amendments you adopted at first reading. This reconciled the consumer’s right to guaranteed origin with the need for a practical system.

Like Parliament, the Council also recognised that compulsory labelling needed to be introduced earlier than stipulated in the original proposal. Furthermore, the Council even complied with Parliament’s request to delete all references to EU origin. Lastly, the Council also took on board the request for stricter labelling requirements for minced beef, and tightened up the wording of the rules proposed by the Commission.

It was only possible to achieve all these joint solutions between the Council and Parliament because the Member States agreed that no more national beef labelling schemes would apply after 2002. The greatest achievement was reaching agreement on a uniform Community-wide labelling scheme for beef. We should not therefore jeopardise this common interest and this move towards integration again.

As we have now heard from the Committee on the Environment, we are not yet out of the woods, politically speaking.

There are now amendments to be considered in plenary sitting, and approving some of these amendments would have far-reaching consequences, above all in terms of timing and as regards the adoption of the regulation. For example, as several speakers have noted, two amendments on labelling minced beef have been tabled. This issue has been scrutinised in great detail both here in Parliament and also by the Council. You will see that the Council has taken your comments on board and has tightened up the wording of the rules, and has in fact made them even stricter than stipulated in the original Commission proposal.

One of the two new amendments reiterates the view that producers of minced beef should give precise details of the origin of the beef they have processed. Ladies and gentlemen, given the industrial conditions under which minced beef is produced nowadays, this would quite obviously be asking too much. Although the industry agrees with watertight guarantees of origin, it is already having great difficulties in giving details about the point of slaughter and of preparation for minced beef products. This demonstrates that the regulation will also have a similar impact. So it will certainly not be possible to put the new proposal into practice. If the worst came to the worst, it could even lead to some companies, especially in the smaller Member States, going bankrupt and the market for minced beef being completely renationalised. That is the effect it would have. And you cannot convince me that a Polish cow imported into Austria would be a problem for Austrian consumers. Because I can tell the honourable Member that if a consumer buys minced beef in a butcher’s shop in Austria, he has the piece of meat minced in front of his own eyes, and in that case there are no problems either with origin or anything else. What we are talking about here is really industrial processing of minced beef to make burgers and similar products, and nowadays that is a continuous industrial process. If you start interfering in that, then companies like this will use products originating solely in their own country and nothing else. And that would result in the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

The other amendment proposes making it compulsory to give the date minced beef was produced, and this is not the first time we have debated this idea. However, the label already features a more direct and clearer way of giving the consumer such vital information – the use-by date, which shows how long the minced beef can be used for. I do not therefore believe that this new proposal would improve or add to information for consumers. The common position also provides for such information to be given under the ‘simplified procedure’ if anyone requires this. I therefore suggest that we should stick to the provisions on minced beef as laid down in the common position. I am sure that if you take a closer look at the text you will see that the rules stipulated in it are strict enough and that our objective of improving transparency has been achieved.

I would now like to turn to the much discussed issue of category. As you know, this formed part of the original Commission proposal, and I think there is a lot to be said for giving this information. It leads to greater transparency and I believe it is important for consumers. I can only tell you that where I come from, you pay 50% more for veal than for beef. So as a consumer, I would like to know what I am paying 50% more for. There is also a price difference of about one third depending on whether I am buying beef from a cow or beef from a young bull. In that case it is surely in the interest of consumers to know what they are paying more for and to be given a guarantee that when they pay a higher price, they are actually getting what they paid for. Let me explain now what we are actually proposing here.

Categories have already been compulsory in the Community for 20 years as far as whole carcasses are concerned. The existing categories are: calves, young bulls, bullocks, heifers, cows and older bulls. This is also intended as the basis for introducing categories in this case. We simply want the labelling already applying to whole carcasses to apply to individual cuts as well. That is all. We are also willing to make distinctions for meat prepared in different ways. For example, it is not necessary to make a precise distinction for casserole meat, since as I see it is enough to know if you are buying veal or beef casserole meat.

That is what this is about, and that alone! If you say that the Commission does not even know what form the final system will take, then I have to reply that this is a typical chicken-and-egg situation. We cannot lay down Commission rules and implementing provisions until a Council regulation is in force.

The category detail is a matter for the implementing provisions. So you cannot demand guarantees from the Commission as to exactly how the whole system will operate, because we will have to discuss this with the Member States in the Management Committee first. What you are calling for here is not legally possible, unless you want to make the whole system part of the Council regulation itself. But that would be another kettle of fish. That is why I think that the procedure proposed here is correct. But I can give you one assurance, if you wish: the Commission will be backing the categories that I have mentioned, but not anything more complicated.

We have to be clear about one thing: if we do not introduce these categories, the result will be a return to national labelling systems in this area too. That can surely not be in Europe’s interest. Of course, politically speaking there is more than one way of looking at this issue. Although the Commission, and I think I have made this clear, does not agree with those who think that providing this information is impracticable, pointless or prohibitively expensive, I cannot say that a system without this kind of provision is out of the question. But what the Commission wanted to avoid at all costs was a return to national schemes, which in practice would lead to a total renationalisation of markets, thus undermining the common market. Surely that is not the idea. So I believe that we should adhere to the common position in this respect as well.

I would now like to make two brief points. Mr Hudghton asked if it would be possible to display information regarding the area of origin, such as the Orkney Islands for example, on a voluntary basis. Such voluntary information on area of origin is possible, as long as protected designations of origin are not involved, because it logically follows that protected designations of origin must be protected as such.

That brings me to the last argument put forward by various Members, that is to say the failure to introduce technical requirements. If we were to gear our decision-making to when it occurs to the last Member State that it is now ready to establish technical requirements, then we would be gearing the process to those who are dragging their feet on compulsory beef labelling. We cannot accept that, it would be counterproductive. The market will in fact penalise those who were not prepared to establish the technical requirements for beef labelling promptly.

I would therefore ask you to bear these considerations in mind when you vote tomorrow. I can also assure you that this system will not be as complicated in practice as many of you here imagine. This is a mock-up of how one of these labels will look in future. And there is still room for the price and any other information consumers specifically require anyway. You see, it can work!

  President. – Commissioner, this debate is going to go on until we have completed the conciliation process.

Colleagues, I recognise there is a difficulty. You should corner Mr Fischler individually if you wish to speak to him. I have been involved in the meat industry for a number of years myself. The matter is not yet satisfactorily resolved.

Mrs Jackson, do you have a point of order?

  Jackson (PPE-DE). – I am simply pointing out that the Commissioner should not give the impression that there is no room for conciliation on this. We have room for conciliation and the advantage, if we adopt these amendments tomorrow, is that Parliament would be openly engaged in the final form of this proposal, which otherwise we will not be.

  President. – The matter of raising conciliation will be after the vote tomorrow.

That concludes the debate.

The vote will be taken tomorrow at noon.