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?

Political group: PPE-DE