Mr President, having heard the text read by Mr Byrne, of which I have a copy here before me, there is indeed little point in this debate. Mr Byrne, it is not true that the Council has not taken any decisions. The Council has decided on a year’s postponement. It says so. The Council has decided that it knows that the Commission – in other words you – will present another solution which we know nothing about. You know what it is, they know that you will present it to them, that it will be a good solution, that it will approve it by 31 December and that it will approve it without codecision. That too is a Council decision. Consequently, you are trying to fool us here. Despite all this, I still have to present my report to you. We approved Regulation No 820 in 1997. It makes provision for the identification and registration of bovine animals – this was during the “mad cow” crisis – and it was decided on and entered into force on 1 July 1997. It makes provision for labelling of beef and beef products: voluntary labelling until 31 December 1999 and compulsory labelling as of 1 January 2000. I should point out, just so that we are clear on this, that the voluntary scheme in each country or in certain countries will obviously not become the compulsory system throughout the Union. The transition from the voluntary to the compulsory scheme is effected by approving implementary regulations which should have been drafted by the Commission and which should be approved by 1 January 2000. As yet, nothing has been approved. Consequently, as of 1 January 2000 we must expect to have a sort of legal vacuum and chaos and confusion on the market. Why? Because the Member States have been late sending in the reports which they were required to send to the Commission and the Commission has failed to do its work. Then the Commission comes along on 15 November and tells us, “We are unable to complete, please can we postpone for a year”, adding that this will be on a new legal basis, Article 152 of the Treaty, which is quite right following the Amsterdam Treaty. This development puts Parliament in a very difficult position, Mr President. Either we accept exactly what the Commission tells us, i.e. we postpone for a year and then codecide on the implementary regulations, or we make amendments, in which case, the Council tells us, these amendments cannot be accepted. It has already told us. If they cannot be accepted, then again we have a problem. What did we do in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy? We of course voiced the right criticism which, I believe, should be particularly forceful of the Commission and the Council. We do not accept a year’s postponement. We say it should be reduced to no more than eight months and, of course, with the amendments which the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has approved, we have, Mr President, to all intents and purposes, agreed with the proposals to sideline codecision, in order to save time and ensure that a compulsory agreement is reached quickly. We have seen what the Council has decided, it has discounted all of this as impossible. It has already said that it is going to postpone for a year and that it is waiting for the famous proposals which the Commission is hiding up its sleeve and which will solve the problem of implementation. I think, Mr President, that things have come to a pretty pass. I do not think that any of the procedures being proposed guarantee that we will proceed more quickly towards compulsory labelling. I imagine that the Council will soon meet in extraordinary session, probably before Christmas, and will do something to ensure that there is no vacuum, chaos and confusion. However, codecision has been sidelined and perhaps we are partly to blame. I think, Mr President, that it is only logical after all this to envisage the possibility of going to Court, because these are clear infringements of the legislation. I personally think that there is no guarantee that we will proceed more quickly. However, I recommend the solution proposed by the Committee on Environment and I hope that we will proceed more quickly, albeit using dubious methods, towards compulsory labelling. We have seen today how important it is in resolving differences between Member States and, above all, and much more importantly, and this is what interests us, how important it is to consumer protection. If we see that even with this dubious method there is no progress towards an urgent solution, I think it is unavoidable that we shall end up taking recourse to Court, if, of course, there is a majority in the House which has the political courage and resolution to do so.

Political group: GUE-NGL