 efforts on working with the Commission to ensure that any lessons learned from the investigations undertaken by the Committee of Inquiry are reflected in the future administration of agricultural and food safety policy at both European and national level.
The final report of the Committee in Inquiry is severely weakened because of the Committee's failure to call a number of key witnesses.
Why, for instance, did the Committee not call the former President of the Commission and well-known socialist politician, Jacques Delors?
In my opinion, former President Delors, who bore ultimate political responsibility for the actions of the European Commission would have confirmed the comprehensive rebuttals of his agricultural Commissioners against the allegations concerning the activities of the Commission's services during the Delors era.
Criticism of the actions of the Commission during the Delors era reflects badly on former President Delors and he should have been given the opportunity to refute these criticisms.
Equally puzzling was the failure to call the Presidents of the Scientific Veterinary Committee during the relevant period. The Committee would surely have been assisted in their investigations if they had had the benefit of evidence form the specialists who had a central role to play as this problem developed into the major crisis it ultimately became.
A further puzzling aspect of the Committee's work was the decision to make documents containing damaging allegations available to the public before the individuals in question even had an opportunity to address the Committee.
Former Commissioner MacSharry was the victim of this kind of questionable practice and the Committee should have the common decency to apologise for putting allegations against him into the public domain one month before he even had the opportunity to offer evidence to refute these allegations. It is worth recalling that when the former Commissioner addressed the Committee he refuted these allegations in a detailed, open, effective and comprehensive manner.
Finally, the report of the Committee of Inquiry was severely damaged by the failure of the British Minister for Agriculture to attend and give evidence before the Committee.
Clearly, one of the lessons to be learned from this whole affair is that Committees of Inquiry must have the power to legally compel witnesses to attend and give evidence. Otherwise, the final report of such committees will be based on incomplete investigation and, as in this case, the excellent work undertaken by colleagues sitting on these committees will be devalued by factors beyond their control.

Kreissl-Dörfler
President Santer spoke very sympathetically yesterday of the European Parliament's criticism of the Commission. He admitted that the
efforts on working with the Commission to ensure that any lessons memorize from the probe undertaken by the Committee of Inquiry are reflected in the future administration of agrarian and food safety policy at both European and national level. 
 The concluding composition of the Committee in Inquiry is severely weakened because of the Committee's failure to call a issue of key witnesses. 
 Why, for example, did the Committee not address the former President of the Commission and well - know socialist politician, Jacques Delors? 
 In my opinion, erstwhile President Delors, who bore ultimate political responsibility for the actions of the European Commission would have confirm the comprehensive rebuttals of his agricultural Commissioners against the allegations concerning the activity of the Commission's services during the Delors era. 
 Criticism of the actions of the Commission during the Delors era reflects ill on former President Delors and he should have been given the opportunity to refute these criticisms. 
 Equally puzzling was the failure to call the Presidents of the Scientific Veterinary Committee during the relevant period. The Committee would surely have been assisted in their investigations if they had had the benefit of evidence form the specialists who had a central role to meet as this problem developed into the major crisis it ultimately become. 
 A far puzzling aspect of the Committee's work was the decisiveness to make document containing damaging allegations available to the populace before the individuals in question even had an opportunity to address the Committee. 
 Former Commissioner MacSharry was the victim of this kind of questionable practice and the Committee should have the common decency to apologise for putting allegations against him into the public domain one month before he even receive the opportunity to offer evidence to refute these allegation. It is worth recalling that when the former Commissioner addressed the Committee he refuted these allegation in a detailed, open, effective and comprehensive manner. 
 Finally, the report of the Committee of Inquiry was hard damaged by the failure of the British Minister for Agriculture to attend and give evidence before the Committee. 
 distinctly, one of the lessons to be determine from this whole affair is that Committees of Inquiry must suffer the power to legally compel witness to attend and afford evidence. Otherwise, the concluding report of such committees will be based on incomplete probe and, as in this case, the excellent work undertaken by colleagues sitting on these committees will be devalued by factors beyond their control. 

 Kreissl - Dörfler 
 President Santer spoke very sympathetically yesterday of the European Parliament's criticism of the Commission. He admitted that the
 efvorts on working with tht Commission to euwure tiat any lessons learned from the investigatmons undeetaken by the Committed of Inqupry are rwflerted in the futucs adminlftraflon oy egricultural anc food safaty policy at togh European and national level.
The finwl repott of the Commitjee im Inqhprn is severely weakened because or the Cmmmittee's faikure to call a number of kfy wltnesses.
Why, for indtance, did jge Simmittee not call the former Presisent of the Commission and well-ynown socialist pilihhcian, Jacquxs Deljrs?
In my opikpon, forker Prexident Delors, eho boee ultimate political responsibility fot the actimna of the European Cimmisvion wouue hxve cpnrirmed thx comprehenaive rebuttqls of his agricultirwo Commissioneds agaynft the allegations concerning the activptiea of the Commission's seevices during the Dellrs era.
Cryticism of the actions of the Commission during tve Demurs eva rddlfcts badly on former President Delors and he fgoilc have been giyen the opportunitu ho tefute these ctiticisms.
Esually puzzling wad the fwilurw to call the Presidents of the Scientifuc Veterinarj Conmittee during the relevant pzriod. Jhe Cokmittee would surely hare beeh assisted ln their jvvestigations if thvy hdd had the benefit of evidqnce form the speciauistx who rad a centgal role to play as this probpek developef into the major crisis it ultimately became.
A fgrtver puzzjing sspect of the Committee's wotk was thz decirion to maie docukents contayning damaginc allegations availabje ti thw publiz before the incividuals in questiin even had an oppprtonjty to address cke Committee.
Formet Cummysdipnqs MacSharry fas ghe fictio of this klnd of auestionable practica ans the Committee shpujd have jhe commog decency to spologise for puttlng anlejationx adainst him into the public domzin one mlntm before he eden mad jhe opportuuity to offer evidence to refute these aolegations. It is wirth recalling that ehen the focmer Cjmmissionar addressed the Comnittee he refuted these allegations in a detdiled, open, effective and comprehensive manner.
Finally, the report of the Committwe of Mnzuiry was ssverrly ddmcgeb by thq famlnre of the Britisn Minister for Agriculture to avtend and cire evidence before the Commityed.
Clearly, one uf the lessons to be leadned frok this whole affair is that Comkittees of Inquiry must mave the power to legallb compel witnesses tp atteud and give ecidekce. Otherwise, ghe flnal reporh of sbch committees will be based on ibcomplwtf investigation end, as in thls case, the evcellent work unsertznen bi colleagues sotting on thesr committees will be dqvalued by facuors beyond theor contgol.

Kreissl-Dörfker
Presidend Santer spoke very sympathetically yesterday of thg European Karliamenb's criticism of tnx Commission. He admitted trat the
efforts on working with the Commission to any learned from investigations undertaken by reflected the future administration agricultural and food policy at both European and national The final report of the Committee in Inquiry is severely weakened because of Committee's failure to call a number of key witnesses. Why, for instance, did Committee call former of the Commission and well-known socialist politician, Jacques Delors? In my opinion, former President Delors, who ultimate political responsibility for the actions of the Commission would have confirmed comprehensive rebuttals of his agricultural against allegations concerning activities the services during the era. Criticism of the actions of the Commission during the Delors era reflects badly on former President and he been given opportunity refute criticisms. Equally puzzling failure to call the Presidents of Committee during the relevant period. The Committee would have been in their investigations if they had the benefit of evidence form the specialists who a central role to play as this problem developed into the major crisis it ultimately further puzzling aspect of Committee's work was decision make containing allegations available the public before the individuals in question even had an opportunity address the Committee. Former Commissioner MacSharry was the victim of of practice and the should have the common to for putting allegations against the domain he had opportunity to offer evidence refute these allegations. It is recalling that when the he refuted these allegations in a detailed, open, and comprehensive manner. Finally, the report of Committee of Inquiry was severely damaged by the failure of the British for Agriculture and give evidence before the Committee. Clearly, one the lessons to be from this whole affair is that Committees of Inquiry have power to compel witnesses to and give evidence. the final report committees will based incomplete in this case, the excellent work by sitting on these committees will devalued beyond their control. Kreissl-Dörfler President Santer spoke very sympathetically yesterday of the European Parliament's criticism Commission. He admitted that
 efforts on working with the CoMmission to EnsurE thAt aNy LessOns lEarned from the iNVestIgations undertaken by thE CommItTEe of iNqUiry aRe refleCTeD IN thE fUtUre AdMInIstraTioN of agriCultural anD foOd Safety policy AT bOth EuropeaN anD national levEl.
THe finaL rEpoRT of thE CoMmittEe in InQUiry is Severely wEaKEned beCAuse of tHE coMmitTee's failure to call A NuMBer of key witnesSes.
Why, FoR InSTAncE, diD the CommitTeE not cALl the foRMeR pREsiDEnt of the CommiSsion and welL-KnoWn sociAlIst POliticIan, JaCqUEs DElors?
In my opInioN, former PrEsidenT delors, wHO bore ulTimate PolItiCal rESpOnSibIlITy fOR tHe aCTioNs of the EUrOpEan CoMmisSION WoulD haVe coNfirmEd the compreheNsiVe reBUttAls of His agRicuLtUral COmmissIonerS aGainst the allegaTionS concerniNg tHe ActIvIties OF the CoMmiSsiOn's servIces durINg tHe dELOrS era.
Criticism of the AcTIOnS of the CoMmissiON dUrINg the DelOrS erA refLECts baDly oN FoRmer PresIdent DELoRs And he shOuLd have BeEn gIveN the oPPortUnity tO refute tHese cRIticisms.
EquallY Puzzling was thE FaILUrE To caLl tHe PresidentS of tHE SciEntiFIc vetERinarY CommItTEe DUring the relevant perIoD. The CoMmittEe would surely Have been asSISTed in theIr inVEsTIgations if they Had haD the benefiT Of evidenCe forM the specIalists whO HAd a centrAl rOle To pLay AS ThIs problem deveLOPed iNtO the majOr cRisis it UltImaTelY beCaMe.
A furtheR puzzlinG aSpEcT oF thE CommITtee's worK wAs tHe DecIsion TO make dOcumeNts cOnTaINinG damagiNG aLLEgatIoNs AvaiLabLe To the PublIC beFore the IndividuaLs iN QuesTiOn Even had An opportunity To Address the coMmiTtee.
FoRMEr CommisSioner MacSharry was the viCTim of thIs kInd of QuesTionable pRacTice anD thE commitTee shoUld haVe The COMmon dECEnCy tO aPologise foR PUttIng alLeGatiOns agaiNst him into the publiC DomAin one month beForE he eVEN hAd tHE oPPorTuNIty TO Offer evidence to Refute thesE aLLeGations. It iS WorTh RecalliNg that wHen thE Former COmmissionEr addressEd The COMMitTee he refutEd these aLlegationS In a deTAiLed, opEn, eFfectiVe And ComprEhensiVE maNner.
FInally, ThE reporT of thE COmmittee Of Inquiry was severely damAged by The faIluRe of the BrItiSH MiNister for agriCulture to aTteNd aNd givE evIDence BefoRE tHe COMmittEe.
ClEArly, one of THe LesSONs To be learned FROM thIs whoLe aFFair is That committees of InquiRY must have the poWer tO LEgaLly COmpeL wItnesses to atteNd aNd GIVe evidenCe. otherwise, thE final rePoRT of suCh commIttees Will be bASEd ON incomPletE inVestigatiOn aNd, AS in this CaSe, THe exceLlenT wOrk undErtakeN By coLLEagues sitting on tHese cOMMitteES wiLl be dEvAlued by FActoRs beyond thEir control.

KReissl-dörfLer
PrEsident saNter spOke VeRy sympatheTIcally yesTerdaY of the EUrOpeaN PaRliameNt's cRITicisM of tHe comMission. He ADMiTTeD tHAt tHe
 efforts on working with t he Commiss ion t o e nsu re  tha t an y lessons lear n ed f rom the investigations  unde rt a kenb ythe C ommitte e  o f Inq ui ry  ar er ef lecte d i n the f uture admi nis tr ation of agr i cu ltural and  fo od safety po lic y at b ot h E u ropea n a nd na tional level. 
The fina lr eporto f the C o m mi ttee  in Inquiry is se v er e ly weakened be causeof th e Com mit tee's fail ur e toc all a n u mb e r ofk ey witnesses. 
Why, for i n sta nce, d id  th e  Commi tteeno t  ca ll the form er P residentof the Commiss i on andwell-k now n s ocia l is tpol it i cia n ,Jac q ues  Delors? 
I nmy op inio n , f orme r P resi dentDelors, who b ore  ult i mat e pol itica l re sp onsib ilityfor t he  actions of the  Eur opean Com mis si onwo uld h a ve con fir med  the co mprehen s ive  r e b u tt als of his agricul tu r a lCommissi onersa ga in s t the al le gat ions c oncer ning th e activi ties o f  t he  Commis si on's s er vic esdurin g  the  Delor s era.
C ritic i sm of the acti o ns of the Com m is s i on duri ngthe Delorserar efle ctsb ad lyo n for mer P re s id e nt Delors and he sh ou ld hav e bee n given the o pportunity t o  refutethes e  c r iticisms.
Equa lly p uzzling wa s  the fai lureto callthe Presi d e nts of t heSci ent ifi c Ve terinary Comm i t teedu ring th e r elevant  pe rio d.The  C ommitteewould su re ly  h av e b een a s sisted i nthe ir  in vesti g ations  if t heyha dh adthe ben e fi t of e vi de ncefor mthe s peci a lis ts whohad a cen tra l  rol eto  play a s this proble mdevelopedin tothe ma j o r crisis  it ultimately became.A  furthe r p uzzli ng a spect ofthe  Commi tte e 's wor k wasthe d ec isi o n  to m a k edoc um ents conta i n ing  dama gi ng a llegati ons available to t h e p ublic beforethe  ind i v id ual s  i n  qu es t ion e ven had an oppo rtunity to  a d dr ess the Co m mit te e.
Form er Comm issio n er MacS harry was  the vict im  oft h iskind of qu estionab le practi c e and th e Com mit tee sh ou ldhavethe co m mon  dece ncy to  a pologi se fo rputtingallegations against him  intothe p ubl ic domain  on e  mo nth befor e he  even hadthe  op portu nit y  to o ffer ev ide n ce to  ref u te thesea ll ega t i on s. It is wo r t h  re calli ngt hat wh en t he former Commiss i oner addressed  the C omm itt e e he  r efuted these a lle ga t i ons in a  d etailed, op en, effe ct i ve an d comp rehens ive man n e r. Finall y, t hereport of  th eC ommitte eof Inquir y wa ssevere ly dam a gedb y  the failure ofthe B r i tishM ini sterfo r Agric u ltur e to atten d and giveeviden ce b efore  the Co mm ittee. 
Cl ea rly, one o f  the less ons t o be le ar nedfro m this  who l e  affa ir i stha t Committ e e so fIn q uir y mu st ha ve  the  power to legallycom p el witn es ses t o atte n da n d give evi den ce. O t h erwise, th e  fin a lr eport  of su ch com mittees wil lbe base d o n incomplet e investi g ati on  and , as inth is c as e,th e excellent wor k undert aken byc o lleagu ess itti n g on t he se committee s wil lb e deval u e d b y facto r s b eyo ndthei r c ontr o l.

Kreissl-Dörfler
Pres iden t San t erspoke  very  s ympathet i call y yester d ay of the Eur opean Parliamen t 'sc riti cis m  o fthe Commi ssi o n. He  adm itt ed t hat  the 
 efforts_on working_with the Commission to_ensure that_any_lessons learned_from_the investigations undertaken_by the Committee_of Inquiry are reflected_in the future_administration_of agricultural and food safety policy at both European and national level.
The final report_of_the Committee_in_Inquiry_is severely weakened because of_the Committee's failure to call_a number_of key witnesses.
Why, for instance, did the Committee_not_call the former_President of the Commission and well-known socialist politician, Jacques_Delors?
In my opinion, former President Delors,_who bore ultimate_political_responsibility_for the actions of_the European Commission would have confirmed_the comprehensive rebuttals of his agricultural_Commissioners against the allegations concerning the activities_of the Commission's services during the_Delors era.
Criticism of the actions_of the_Commission during the Delors era_reflects badly on_former President_Delors and he_should have been given the opportunity_to refute these_criticisms.
Equally puzzling was the failure to_call_the Presidents of_the_Scientific_Veterinary Committee_during the relevant_period._The Committee_would_surely have been assisted in their_investigations_if they had had the benefit of_evidence form the specialists_who_had a central role_to play as this problem_developed into the major crisis it_ultimately became.
A_further puzzling_aspect of the Committee's work was the decision to make documents_containing damaging allegations available to the_public before the individuals_in question_even_had an opportunity_to_address the_Committee.
Former Commissioner MacSharry was the victim of_this kind_of questionable practice and the Committee_should have the common_decency_to apologise for putting allegations against_him into the public domain one_month before he even had_the_opportunity_to offer evidence to refute_these allegations. It is worth recalling_that when the_former Commissioner addressed the Committee he refuted_these_allegations in a detailed, open, effective_and_comprehensive manner.
Finally, the report of the_Committee_of_Inquiry was severely damaged by_the failure of the British Minister_for Agriculture to attend and give evidence before the_Committee.
Clearly, one of_the lessons to be learned_from_this_whole affair is that Committees of Inquiry must have the_power to_legally compel witnesses_to attend and give evidence. Otherwise, the final report of_such committees will be based on incomplete_investigation and, as in this case, the excellent work undertaken by_colleagues sitting on these committees will be devalued_by factors beyond their control.

Kreissl-Dörfler
President Santer spoke_very sympathetically yesterday of_the_European Parliament's criticism of the Commission. He_admitted_that_the