 separate from that of the President of the Commission of a few hours ago.
He has just told us, and this is very positive, that he wanted to change legal basis and adopt Article 100, but in the same breath, after giving us the carrot, he comes with the stick saying that he will not be able to accept the amendments demanding compulsory labelling.
I find that that is an extraordinary contradiction, and would like to have confirmation of my interpretation. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but on the one hand we have the 100 A, and on the other hand the Commission does not support Parliament's amendments. So what is the advantage? In the end, nothing.

Mayer
We already knew that the Commissioner would naturally want to make very liberal use of his red pen in his response to our amendments. However, Commissioner, I believe that the supreme principle is the restoration of consumer confidence. And for that reason we must push through practicable rules. Compulsory specifications for cattle identification and beef labelling can be rapidly implemented. I believe that, even with Article 100a as the legal basis, a message could be sent, as Mr Goepel said, that it need not take eleven months but that it is possible to adopt the relevant regulations more quickly, even on this legal basis. That is all.

Vandemeulebroucke
Madam President, I once asked Commissioner Fischler in a debate if he was willing to study the introduction of an electronic system, chips, whereby the animal could be monitored throughout its life. My question is whether he is prepared to look into the practicability and cost of that?

Olsson
Madam President, first, I would like to say how valuable it is that the Commissioner has changed the legal basis to Article 100a. This is in line with Mr. Santer's words yesterday which pleases me. Otherwise there are no further problems, or at least not many, as far as my report is concerned. The Commissioner has accepted the bulk of the amendments, although not the proposal concerning the committee system, i.e. that more power is transferred to the Commission and that preparation work is carried out more openly. It would certainly have been helpful if this could have been accepted.
One comment I must make about Mr Papayannakis report is that it would have been useful if it had taken a more robust attitude, i.e. the Parliamentary view of obligatory labelling of meat. I am practical so I realise that this is difficult
separate from that of the President of the Commission of a few hours ago. 
 He has just told us, and this is very incontrovertible, that he want to change legal basis and adopt Article 100, but in the like breath, after giving us the carrot, he comes with the pin saying that he will not be able to accept the amendment demanding compulsory labelling. 
 I find that that is an extraordinary contradiction, and would wish to have confirmation of my interpretation. Perhaps I accept misunderstood, but on the one hand we have the 100 A, and on the other hand the Commission does not support Parliament's amendment. So what is the advantage? In the end, nothing. 

 Mayer 
 We already knew that the Commissioner would naturally desire to make very liberal function of his red playpen in his response to our amendments. However, Commissioner, I believe that the supreme principle is the restitution of consumer confidence. And for that reason we must push through practicable rules. Compulsory specifications for cattle identification and beef labelling can be rapidly implemented. I believe that, even with Article 100a as the legal basis, a message could be sent, as Mr Goepel said, that it need not take eleven months but that it is possible to assume the relevant regulations more quickly, even on this legal footing. That is all. 

 Vandemeulebroucke 
 Madam President, I once ask Commissioner Fischler in a argument if he was willing to study the introduction of an electronic system, chips, whereby the animal could be monitored throughout its life. My question is whether he is disposed to look into the practicability and cost of that? 

 Olsson 
 Madam President, first, I would like to say how valuable it is that the Commissioner has changed the legal basis to Article 100a. This is in line with Mr. Santer's words yesterday which pleases me. Otherwise there are no further trouble, or at least not many, as far as my report card is concerned. The Commissioner has accepted the bulk of the amendments, although not the proposal refer the committee system, i.e. that more power is transferred to the Commission and that readiness work is carried out more openly. It would certainly have been helpful if this could have been accepted. 
 One gossip I must make about Mr Papayannakis composition is that it would have been useful if it had taken a more full-bodied attitude, i.e. the Parliamentary view of obligatory labelling of meat. I am practical thus I realise that this is unmanageable
 seoarate from that of the Kresident of the Eimmissmon of z few hojrs ago.
He has just told us, aid tyis iw very positive, that hd wanted no change legel basis and ado'f Article 100, buf in chx same breath, anter giving us the carrot, hd eomes with the stick saying that he rill noy he able to accgpt tnq amsndments demanding compulsory labemling.
I hind that that os an extraordinary contrafictlon, and would like to have cobfiriqtion of my knterpretauimn. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but on thd one hand we hqvw tjg 100 A, and on vhe otrer hand the Commisshon doex not support Iarliemenr's amendments. So what is the advantage? Yn the eng, uothing.

Mayer
We alreadt jnew jhat dhe Zimmkssjoier would navurally wanf to make vwry liberal use of nif red pen in hjs res[ogse to our amendments. However, Commissioter, I believe that the supeeme principle is the restoratyon of consumer confidence. And for that reason we must ousk throjth practicable rules. Compulsory specifications skr csttle identifigation and beef laneplogg can be rapkdly implsmented. I believe hhat, evgn wity Article 100a ax the legal basis, a message could be seut, qs Mr Goepel said, chat it need not take eleven months but that it js possible to adopt ghe relevant regjlanionv more quickly, even on thif legal besis. Chat is xll.

Vsndemetlebroucke
Ladam President, I once adked Eommivsioner Fidchler in a debate if he was willing to study tve pntroductnon of an electronis system, chips, wherebv the xnimal coumd be mmnitored thwoughout its nlfe. My questmon is whqthee he is preoxred to look imto the pgaeticabiliry and cost of thab?

Olssuh
Madam Presidenc, dirst, I would loke to swy hjf valuable id is thxy the Commissioncr fas vhanged the legal bavis fo Article 100a. This os in line with Mr. Santer's wordx yesterday which kleasev mx. Othetwife there are no further problejs, or at peaft not many, ws fqr as my repprt is concerned. The Commissioner has arcepted the bulk of thg amendments, although kot the proppsal soncerninc the committee systwm, i.e. that more ppwer is transferred tk the Wommidsion and that preparation work is carried out more openly. It would certaunly hevq been helprul of thps eoukd havq bexn accepted.
One comkent I must make about Mr Papayennakis re[oxt is that it would have been ureful if it hxd taken a more robust aftitude, o.e. the Parliamentary view of obkigatory labelling of mest. I am practjcal so I cealise that this is diffieult
separate from that of the President of of few hours He has just very that he wanted change legal basis adopt Article 100, but in the breath, after giving us the carrot, he comes with the stick saying that will not be able to accept the amendments demanding compulsory labelling. I find that an contradiction, would like to have confirmation of my interpretation. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but on the one we have the 100 A, and on the hand the Commission does support Parliament's amendments. So what the In the nothing. We knew that the would naturally want to make very liberal use of his red pen in his response to our However, Commissioner, that the principle the of consumer confidence. that reason we must push through specifications for cattle identification and beef labelling can rapidly implemented. believe that, even with Article 100a the legal basis, a message could be sent, Mr Goepel said, that it need not take eleven months but that it is possible the relevant regulations more even on this basis. is Vandemeulebroucke President, I asked Commissioner Fischler in a debate if he was willing to the introduction of an electronic system, chips, whereby the animal monitored its life. My is whether he is to into the practicability and that? Madam would to how valuable it is the Commissioner has changed the basis to Article 100a. Mr. Santer's words yesterday which pleases me. Otherwise are no further problems, or at least many, as far as my report is concerned. The Commissioner has accepted bulk of although not the proposal concerning the committee system, that more power is to the Commission and that preparation work is carried more It would have been helpful this could have accepted. One comment make about Papayannakis is have been useful if it had a robust attitude, i.e. the Parliamentary of of meat. I am practical so I realise that this is difficult
 separate from that of the PresIdent of the commiSsiOn oF a Few hOurs Ago.
He has just toLD us, aNd this is very positive, thAt he wAnTEd to CHaNge leGal basiS AnD ADopT ARtIclE 100, bUT iN the sAme Breath, aFter giving Us tHe Carrot, he comeS WiTh the stick SayIng that he wilL noT be ablE tO acCEpt thE amEndmeNts demANding cOmpulsory LaBElling.
i Find thaT THaT is aN extraordinary conTRaDIction, and would Like to HaVE cONFirMatIon of my intErPretaTIon. PerhAPs i HAVe mISunderstood, buT on the one haND we Have thE 100 A, And ON the otHer haNd THe COmmission doEs noT support PArliamENt's amenDMents. So What is The AdvAntaGE? IN tHe eNd, NOthINg.

mayER
We Already kNeW tHat thE ComMISSIoneR woUld nAturaLly want to make VerY libERal Use of His reD pen In His reSponse To our AmEndments. However, commIssioner, I BelIeVe tHaT the sUPreme pRinCipLe is the RestoraTIon Of CONSuMer confidence. And foR tHAT rEason we mUst pusH ThRoUGh practiCaBle RuleS. cOmpulSory SPeCificatiOns for CAtTlE identiFiCation AnD beEf lAbellINg caN be rapIdly implEmentED. I believe that, eVEn with Article 100A As THE lEGal bAsiS, a message coUld bE Sent, As Mr gOePel SAid, thAt it nEeD NoT Take eleven months but ThAt it is PossiBle to adopt the Relevant reGULAtions moRe quICkLY, even on this legAl basIs. That is alL.

vandemeuLebroUcke
MadaM PresidenT, i Once askeD CoMmiSsiOneR fIsChler in a debatE IF he wAs Willing To sTudy the IntRodUctIon Of An electroNic systeM, cHiPs, WhEreBy the ANimal couLd Be mOnItoRed thROughouT its lIfe. MY qUeSTioN is whetHEr HE Is prEpArEd to LooK iNto thE praCTicAbility And cost of ThaT?

olssOn
maDam PresIdent, first, I woUlD like to say HoW vaLuable IT Is that thE Commissioner has changed THe legal BasIs to ARticLe 100a. This is In lIne witH Mr. sAnter's Words yEsterDaY whICH pleaSES mE. OtHeRwise there ARE no FurthEr ProbLems, or aT least not many, as far AS my Report is conceRneD. The cOMmIssIOnER haS aCCepTED the bulk of the amEndments, alThOUgH not the proPOsaL cOncerniNg the coMmittEE system, I.e. that morE power is tRaNsfeRREd tO the CommisSion and tHat preparATion wORk Is carRieD out moRe OpeNly. It Would cERtaInly hAve beeN hElpful If thiS cOuld have Been accepted.
One comment I Must maKe aboUt MR PapayannAkiS RepOrt is that It woUld have beeN usEfuL if it Had TAken a More RObUst ATtituDe, i.e. THe ParliamENtAry VIEw Of obligatorY LABelLing oF meAT. I am prActiCal so I realise that THis is difficult
 separate from that of the  President  of t heCom mi ssio n of  a few hours a g o.
H e has just told us, an d thi si s ve r yposit ive, th a th e  wa nt ed  to  c h an ge le gal  basisand adoptArt ic le 100, buti nthe same b rea th, after gi vin g us t he  ca r rot,hecomes  witht he sti ck saying  t h at hew ill not b eable  to accept the am e nd m ents demanding  compu ls o ry l abe lli ng.
I find  t hat t h at is a n  e x t r aor d inary contrad iction, and wou ld lik etoh ave co nfirm at i onof my inter pret ation. Pe rhapsI  have m i sunders tood,but  on  the on ehan dw e h a ve  th e  10 0 A, and  o nthe o ther h a n d th e C ommi ssion  does not sup por t Pa r lia ment' s ame ndme nt s. So  whatis th eadvantage? In t he e nd, nothi ng. 
May er 
We a l readykne w t hat the  Commis s ion er w o ul d naturally want t om a ke  very li beralu se  o f  his red  p enin h i s  resp onse to  our ame ndment s .Ho wever,Co mmissi on er,  Ibelie v e th at the  supreme  prin c iple is the re s toration of c o ns u m er conf ide nce. And fo r th a t re ason we  mu s t pus h thr ou g hp racticable rules. C om pulsor y spe cifications f or cattlei d e ntificat iona nd beef labelling  canbe rapidly implemen ted.I believ e that, e v e n with A rti cle  10 0aa s  t he legal basi s ,  a m es sage co uld  be sen t,asMrGoe pe l said, t hat it n ee dno ttak e ele v en month sbut  t hat  it i s  possi ble t o ad op tt herelevan t  r e g ulat io ns  mor e q ui ckly,  eve n  on  this l egal basi s.T hatis  a ll.

Va ndemeulebrouc ke 
Madam Pre si den t, I o n c e askedCommissioner Fischler i n  a deba teif he  was  willingtostudythe introd uction  of a nele c t ronic s ys tem ,chips, whe r e bythe a ni malcould b e monitored throug h out  its life. My  qu esti o n  i s w h et h erhe isp r epared to lookinto the p ra c ti cability a n d c os t of th at?

Ol ssonM adam Pr esident,first, Iwo uldl i keto say how  valuabl e it is t h at th e  C ommis sio ner ha scha ngedthe le g albasis  to Ar ti cle 10 0a. T hi s is inline with Mr. Santer'swordsyeste rda y which p lea s esme. Other wise  there are  no  fu rther  pr o blems , or at  le a st no t ma n y, as far as  my r ep ort is conc e r n ed.  TheCom m ission er h as accepted the b u lk of the amen dmen t s , a lth o ughno t the proposal  co nc e r ning the  c ommittee sy stem, i. e. thatmore p ower i s trans f e rr e d to t he C omm ission an d t ha t  prepar at io n  workis c ar ried o ut mor e  ope n l y. It would cert ainly h ave b e enhelpf ul  if thi s  cou ld have be en accepted .
Onecomm ent I  must m ak e abou t M rPapayannak i s reportis th at it w ou ld h ave  beenusef u l  if i t ha dtak en a more r ob u st  a t tit ude,  i.e.  t he P arliament a ry viewofo bligato ry  la b e llingo fm e at. I am p rac tical s o I realis e  tha t  t h is is  diffi cult
 separate_from that_of the President of_the Commission_of_a few_hours_ago.
He has just_told us, and_this is very positive,_that he wanted_to_change legal basis and adopt Article 100, but in the same breath, after giving_us_the carrot,_he_comes_with the stick saying that_he will not be able_to accept_the amendments demanding compulsory labelling.
I find that that_is_an extraordinary contradiction,_and would like to have confirmation of my interpretation._Perhaps I have misunderstood, but on_the one hand_we_have_the 100 A, and_on the other hand the Commission_does not support Parliament's amendments. So_what is the advantage? In the end,_nothing.

Mayer
We already knew that the Commissioner_would naturally want to make_very liberal_use of his red pen_in his response_to our_amendments. However, Commissioner,_I believe that the supreme principle_is the restoration_of consumer confidence. And for that_reason_we must push_through_practicable_rules. Compulsory_specifications for cattle_identification_and beef_labelling_can be rapidly implemented. I believe_that,_even with Article 100a as the legal_basis, a message could_be_sent, as Mr Goepel_said, that it need not_take eleven months but that it_is possible_to adopt_the relevant regulations more quickly, even on this legal basis. That_is all.

Vandemeulebroucke
Madam President, I once asked_Commissioner Fischler in a_debate if_he_was willing to_study_the introduction_of an electronic system, chips, whereby the_animal could_be monitored throughout its life. My_question is whether he_is_prepared to look into the practicability_and cost of that?

Olsson
Madam President, first,_I would like to say_how_valuable_it is that the Commissioner_has changed the legal basis to_Article 100a. This_is in line with Mr. Santer's words_yesterday_which pleases me. Otherwise there are_no_further problems, or at least not_many,_as_far as my report is_concerned. The Commissioner has accepted the_bulk of the amendments, although not the proposal concerning_the committee system,_i.e. that more power is_transferred_to_the Commission and that preparation work is carried out more_openly. It_would certainly have_been helpful if this could have been accepted.
One comment I_must make about Mr Papayannakis report is_that it would have been useful if it had taken a_more robust attitude, i.e. the Parliamentary view of_obligatory labelling of meat. I am practical_so I realise that_this_is difficult