 are certainly not in favour of amendments which constantly refer to keeping costs down.
What is cost here? It is not just the cost to the farmer of taking the necessary precautions. It is the cost to the Community if those precautions are not followed through. We have a saying in my country that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance. The same is true of information. We need to have the information in place and we need the legal base which will allow us in future to have a proper concern for consumer matters. That is what shifting the legal base of these reports from Article 43 to Article 100a would do. It would give Parliament codecision; it would be appropriate to proposals which are essential for the smooth functioning of a single market in which consumer priorities have their proper place. Only if we get that shall we be doing our job as a Parliament and acting in the spirit of what President Santer said yesterday in his speech of repentance and contrition.

Cunha
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the reports by Mr Olsson and Mr Mayer are very much interlinked as both of them are aimed at ensuring consumer safety, in terms of consumer products from European Union countries and other countries.
As far as the Olsson report is concerned, I would like to know why the Commission is presenting directives and not regulations? If every Member State should implement the same controls, why not make it compulsory through a Council regulation?
As far as the Mayer report is concerned, I would like to make a few remarks. The first is that I agree totally with the rapporteur when he says that it is not logical to make the register for identifying animals compulsory and the beef labelling system voluntary. Both of them should be compulsory, otherwise the whole effort to identify animals will make no sense.
The second remark is that labelling should compulsorily specify the origin of the meat and also the fattening method used. We should also specify which controls the animals have been subjected to.
The third remark is to emphasise the fact that the European Union cannot think up a whole set of measures of this type without accepting that it has to co-fund the expenditure inherent in these operations to be carried out by the Member States. Many of the problems which currently affect the field of animal and public health are related to the fact that these activities have never really been recognised as genuine Community policy.
My fourth and final remark is that although I fully agree with the aims of these measures I think that their progressive extension to all
are certainly not in favour of amendments which constantly refer to keep price down. 
 What is cost here? It is not just the cost to the farmer of take the necessary precautions. It is the cost to the Community if those precaution are not followed through. We have a saying in my state that if you think education is expensive, hear ignorance. The same is true of data. We need to have the information in place and we need the legal base which will allow us in future to suffer a proper concern for consumer matters. That is what shifting the legal nucleotide of these reports from Article 43 to Article 100a would do. It would give Parliament codecision; it would be appropriate to proposals which are all-important for the smooth functioning of a single market in which consumer priorities own their proper place. Only if we get that shall we be doing our job as a Parliament and work in the spirit of what President Santer said yesterday in his speech of repentance and contrition. 

 Cunha 
 Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the reports by Mr Olsson and Mr Mayer are very much interlinked as both of them are aimed at guarantee consumer safety, in terms of consumer product from European Union nation and other countries. 
 As far as the Olsson report is concerned, I would like to know why the Commission is give directives and not regulations? If every Member State should implement the same controls, why not make it compulsory through a Council rule? 
 As far as the Mayer report is concerned, I would like to make a few remarks. The first is that I match totally with the rapporteur when he says that it is not logical to make the register for identify animals compulsory and the beef labelling system voluntary. Both of them should be compulsory, otherwise the whole effort to identify animals will have no common sense. 
 The second remark is that labelling should compulsorily specify the origin of the meat and also the fattening method acting used. We should also specify which controls the animal have been subjected to. 
 The third remark is to emphasise the fact that the European Union cannot think up a solid stage set of measures of this character without accepting that it has to co - fund the expenditure inherent in these operation to be carry out by the Member States. Many of the problems which presently affect the field of animal and public health are related to the fact that these activity have never really been recognised as genuine residential district policy. 
 My fourth and final remark is that although I fully agree with the aims of these measures I think that their progressive extension to all
 arf certainly not in favouv of amendments cyich cmnstanfly refef to keeping costs down.
What ms cist htge? It is not just the cost to nhe farmee of raking the necessavv predwutimis. It is the coxt to the Wommunity if tvore precautions are not followed throudh. We hsvf a saying in iy cptntrg that if you think education is espensivt, try ignorance. Thr same is true of informatlon. Ae need to have thf informatiin ig place and wd need the legal base shich will allow us in future tu havz a proper xobcegt for consuner mwtters. That lx what shiftimg the legal bsse of these reports from Acticle 43 to Article 100a would do. Ic would give Parliamebt codewisimn; ig wojld bx alproprlatx to proposzls which aee essential for tht siioth functionjng of a single market in which consumer prioriuies gave their proper place. Only if we get that dhall we fe doing our job as a Parliament and acting in tha spicig oy what Prfsident Santer said yesterday in his speech os rtpektance and contrltion.

Cunha
Madam Prrsldrgt, Commissiongr, ladiza znd gentlemen, the geports by Me Olsson wnd Kr Mayer are very much inteelinked as bjrh of them are aimzd at ensuriug conxumer safety, in terms of conrumed products vrom Euroldan Union countrkes atd other countries.
As far af the Olswon xeport ir comcerneq, I would pike bm know why the Comlissiln is presenhing directives and not regulatmpns? If every Mambvr State fhoulc implement tre same controks, why uot maye it compllsory thcough a Counsil regulatiot?
Ws far as thx Mayer rqporr is concervdd, I would likr to make a few remqrks. The first is bhat K agree totally cnty the rapporteut wfen hv seys trdt it is not logkcau to mxke the reglstdr fpr identifying animans ckmpulsory and the necf labellung systqm voluntary. Noth of them shoulf be rompulrory, pthgrwise the whole effort to idenfify animwls will make nj sekse.
Tre second xemark is that labelling should compulsocily specify the origin of the meat and alxp the fatteiing mqthod useg. We should also spexify which controks the animals have bsen sutjectfd to.
The third remark is to emphasise the fact that the European Union cabnot tiigk up a whome srt of mzasbres of thid type without acbepting that it has to co-fund thx expenditgrz inherent in these operationx go be carried out by the Member Statea. Many og the problems which currently sffect the field of animsl and pyblic health arx related to the facy that thesw activutied have never feakln been reclgnixeb as genuine Community policy.
My fiurth qnf final remark iv that althlmgh I rully wgree with the ajms kv there measures I think that thrir progressive extetsyon to all
are certainly not in favour of amendments refer keeping costs What is cost the to the farmer taking the necessary It is the cost to the if those precautions are not followed through. We have a saying in my that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance. The same is true information. need have information in place and we need the legal base which will allow us in future to a proper concern for consumer matters. That is shifting the legal base these reports from Article 43 Article would do. would Parliament it would be to proposals which are essential for the smooth functioning of a single market in which consumer priorities their proper if we that we doing our job Parliament and acting in the spirit Santer said yesterday in his speech of repentance contrition. Cunha President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the by Mr Olsson and Mr Mayer are very interlinked as both of them are aimed at ensuring consumer safety, in terms of consumer European Union countries and countries. As far the report concerned, would like know why the Commission is presenting directives and not regulations? If Member State should implement the same controls, why not make through Council regulation? As as the Mayer report concerned, would like to make remarks. first agree with rapporteur when he says it is not logical to the register for identifying labelling system voluntary. Both of them should be otherwise the whole effort to identify animals make no sense. The second remark is that labelling should compulsorily specify origin of and also the fattening method used. We should specify which controls the have been subjected to. The third remark is to the that the Union cannot think a whole set measures of this accepting that has co-fund in these operations to be carried by Member States. Many of the which the field of animal and public health are related to the fact that these activities really been recognised as Community My fourth and final remark is that although I fully agree with of these measures progressive to all
 are certainly not in favour of Amendments Which ConStaNtLy reFer tO keeping costs dOWn.
WhAt is cost here? It is not jusT the cOsT To thE FaRmer oF taking THe NECesSaRy PreCaUTiOns. It Is tHe cost tO the CommunIty If Those precautIOnS are not folLowEd through. We hAve A sayinG iN my COuntrY thAt if yOu thinK EducatIon is expeNsIVe, try iGNorance. tHE sAme iS true of informatioN. we NEed to have the inFormatIoN In PLAce And We need the lEgAl basE Which wiLL aLLOW us IN future to have A proper concERn fOr consUmEr mATters. THat is WhAT shIfting the leGal bAse of thesE reporTS from ArTIcle 43 to ARticle 100A woUld Do. It WOuLd GivE PARliAMeNt cODecIsion; it wOuLd Be appRoprIATE To prOpoSals Which Are essential fOr tHe smOOth FunctIoninG of a SiNgle mArket iN whicH cOnsumer prioritiEs haVe their prOpeR pLacE. ONly if WE get thAt sHalL we be doIng our jOB as A PARLIaMent and acting in the SpIRIt Of what PrEsidenT saNtER said yesTeRdaY in hIS SpeecH of rEPeNtance anD contrITiOn.

cunha
MaDaM PresiDeNt, COmmIssioNEr, laDies anD gentlemEn, the REports by Mr OlssON and Mr Mayer arE VeRY MuCH intErlInked as both Of thEM are AimeD At EnsURing cOnsumEr SAfETy, in terms of consumer PrOducts From EUropean Union cOuntries anD OTHer countRies.
aS fAR as the Olsson rePort iS concerned, i Would likE to knOw why the commissioN IS presentIng DirEctIveS ANd Not regulationS? iF eveRy member STatE should ImpLemEnt The SaMe controlS, why not mAkE iT cOmPulSory tHRough a CoUnCil ReGulAtion?
aS far as The MaYer rEpOrT Is cOncerneD, i wOULd liKe To Make A feW rEmarkS. The FIrsT is that i agree totAllY With ThE rApporteUr when he says tHaT it is not loGiCal To make THE registeR for identifying animals cOMpulsorY anD the bEef lAbelling sYstEm voluNtaRY. Both oF them sHould Be ComPULsory, OTHeRwiSe The whole efFORt tO idenTiFy anImals wiLl make no sense.
The seCOnd Remark is that lAbeLlinG SHoUld COmPUlsOrILy sPECify the origin of The meat and AlSO tHe fatteninG MetHoD used. We Should aLso spECify whiCh controlS the animaLs Have BEEn sUbjected to.
the third Remark is tO EmphaSIsE the fAct That thE EUroPean UNion caNNot Think Up a whoLe Set of mEasurEs Of this tyPe without accepting that iT has to Co-funD thE expenditUre INheRent in theSe opErations to Be cArrIed ouT by THe MemBer STAtEs. MANy of tHe prOBlems whicH CuRreNTLy Affect the fiELD Of aNimal And PUblic hEaltH are related to the fACt that these actIvitIES haVe nEVer rEaLly been recogniSed As GENuine ComMuNity policy.
MY fourth aNd FInal rEmark iS that aLthough i FUlLY agree With The Aims of theSe mEaSUres I thInK tHAt theiR proGrEssive ExtensIOn to ALL
 are certainly not in favo ur of amen dment s w hic hcons tant ly refer to ke e ping  costs down.
What is c ost h er e ? It is  notjust th e  c o s t t oth e f ar m er  of t aki ng thenecessarypre ca utions. It i s  t he cost to  th e Communityifthosepr eca u tions  ar e not  follo w ed thr ough. Weha v e a sa y ing inm y  c ount ry that if you th i nk education is e xpensi ve ,  t r y  ig nor ance. Thesa me is true of in f o r mat i on. We need t o have thei nfo rmatio ninp lace a nd we  n e edthe legal b asewhich wil l allo w  us inf uture t o have  apro perc on ce rnfo r  co n su mer mat ters. Th at  i s wha t sh i f t i ng t helega l bas e of these re por ts f r omArtic le 43  toAr ticle  100awould  d o. It would giv e Pa rliamentcod ec isi on ; itw ould b e a ppr opriate  to pro p osa ls w h ic h are essential fo rt h esmooth f unctio n in go f a sing le  ma rket i n whi ch c o ns umer pri oritie s  h av e their  p roperpl ace . O nly i f  weget th at shall  we b e  doing our job as a Parliame n ta n da ctin g i n the spiri t of what  Pre s id ent Sante r sai dy es t erday in his speech  o f repe ntanc e and contrit ion.

Cunh a M adam Pre side n t, Commissioner,ladie s and gent l emen, th e rep orts byMr Olsson a nd Mr Ma yer  ar e v ery m uc h interlinked a s bo th  of the m a re aime d a t e nsu rin gconsumersafety,in  t er ms  of  cons u mer prod uc tsfr omEurop e an Uni on co untr ie sa ndother c o un t r ies. 
A sfarasth e Ols sonr epo rt is c oncerned,  Iw ould  l ik e to kn ow why the Co mm ission ispr ese ntingd i rectives  and not regulations? I f  everyMem ber S tate  should i mpl ementthe same c ontrol s, wh ynot m ake i t co mpu ls ory throug h a C ounci lregu lation? 
As far as the May e r r eport is conc ern ed,I wo uld li k e t om ake a  few remarks. T he first i st ha t I agreet ota ll y withthe rap porte u r whenhe says t hat it is  n ot l o g ica l to makethe regi ster fori denti f yi ng an ima ls com pu lso ry an d theb eef  labe llingsy stem v olunt ar y. Bothof them should be compu lsory,  othe rwi se the wh ole eff ort to id enti fy animals  wi llmakenos ense. 
The se con d  rema rk i s  that lab e ll ing s ho uld compuls o r i lyspeci fyt he ori ginof the meat and a l so the fatteni ng m e t hod  us e d. W eshould also sp eci fy w hich con tr ols the ani mals hav eb een s ubject ed to. 
The th i r dr emarkis t o e mphasisethe  f a ct that  t he Europe an U ni on can not th i nk u p a whole set of m easur e s  of t h istypewi thout a c cept ing that i t has to co -fundtheexpen diturein herent  in  t hese opera t ions to b e car ried ou tby t heMember  Sta t e s. Ma ny o fthe  problems w hi c hcu r ren tlyaffec tthefield ofa nimal an d p u blic he al tha r e rela t ed t o the fact  th at th e s e activiti e s ha v en everreally  beenrecogni s edas  genuin e C o m munity po licy.
Myf our th  and  final r em arkis  th at  although I ful ly agree  with th e aims o f t h esem easure sI think that  thei rp rogress i v e e xtensio n  to  al l
 are_certainly not_in favour of amendments_which constantly_refer_to keeping_costs_down.
What is cost_here? It is_not just the cost_to the farmer_of_taking the necessary precautions. It is the cost to the Community if those precautions_are_not followed_through._We_have a saying in my_country that if you think_education is_expensive, try ignorance. The same is true of_information._We need to_have the information in place and we need the_legal base which will allow us_in future to_have_a_proper concern for consumer_matters. That is what shifting the_legal base of these reports from_Article 43 to Article 100a would do._It would give Parliament codecision; it_would be appropriate to proposals_which are_essential for the smooth functioning_of a single_market in_which consumer priorities_have their proper place. Only if_we get that_shall we be doing our job_as_a Parliament and_acting_in_the spirit_of what President_Santer_said yesterday_in_his speech of repentance and contrition.

Cunha
Madam_President,_Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the reports by_Mr Olsson and Mr_Mayer_are very much interlinked_as both of them are_aimed at ensuring consumer safety, in_terms of_consumer products_from European Union countries and other countries.
As far as the Olsson_report is concerned, I would like_to know why the_Commission is_presenting_directives and not_regulations?_If every_Member State should implement the same controls,_why not_make it compulsory through a Council_regulation?
As far as the_Mayer_report is concerned, I would like_to make a few remarks. The_first is that I agree_totally_with_the rapporteur when he says_that it is not logical to_make the register_for identifying animals compulsory and the beef_labelling_system voluntary. Both of them should_be_compulsory, otherwise the whole effort to_identify_animals_will make no sense.
The second_remark is that labelling should compulsorily_specify the origin of the meat and also the_fattening method used._We should also specify which_controls_the_animals have been subjected to.
The third remark is to emphasise_the fact_that the European_Union cannot think up a whole set of measures of_this type without accepting that it has_to co-fund the expenditure inherent in these operations to be carried_out by the Member States. Many of the_problems which currently affect the field of_animal and public health_are_related to the fact that these activities_have_never_really_been recognised as_genuine Community policy.
My_fourth and final_remark is_that although I_fully agree_with the aims_of_these measures I think that their progressive extension to all