REGULATION: DURATION, REVIEW AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
9. ELLIOTT (UK) EMPHASISED THAT WE VIEWED THIS AS A PROVISIONAL
MEASURE. IT SHOULD BE LIMITED IN TIME AND SUBJECT TO VERY EARLY REVIEW, BOTH IN COREPER AND AT EXPERT LEVEL. MOREOVER, MEMBER STATES SHOULD POOL ANY INFORMATION THEY HAD ON THE STATE OF CONTAMINATION IN THE THIRD COUNTREIS CONCERNED AS A BASIS FOR REVIEW. ALL OTHER DELEGATIONS AGREED WITH THIS, ALTHOUGH THE NETHERLANDS SAID THAT THE DURATION OF THE REGULATION SHOULD NOT BE SET SO SHORT TO ENDANGER SAFETY, AND VAN BEUGE EMPHASISED THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTY OF HOLDING A SENSIBLE REVIEW IN A VERY FEW DAYS AS THE UK WISHED. GREY (COMMISSION) DREW ATTENTION TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMMUNITY RAPID ALERT SYSTEM, THROUGH WHICH THE NECESSARY INFORMATION COULD BE POOLED. IT WAS FINALLY AGREED AS PART OF THE OVERALL COMPROMISE THAT THE REGULATION SHOULD RUN FROM 31 MAY, THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD COLLECT DATA TO PROPOSE ANY NECESSARY CHANGES BEFORE 20 MAY, AND THAT COREPER, AND THE RELEVANT EXPERT GROUPS, SHOULD COMPARE NOTES NEXT WEEK.
REGULATION: LEGAL BASE
10. MARTIN AND RYTTER SAID THEY COULD NOT ACCEPT ARTICLE 113. THE LEGAL BASE MUST BE ARTICLE 100 SINCE THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS MEASURE WAS NOT TRADE. VAN BEUGE OINTED OUT THAT THE GRAVITY OF THE MATTER PRECLUDED CONSULTATION OF THE PARLIAMENT AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE
100. ANOTHER POSSIBILITY WAS TO USE THE GENERAL REGULATION 827/68
WHICH UNFORTUNATELY DID NOT COVER POTATOES. ELLIOTT POINTED OUT THAT
THE UK HAD DIFFICULTUES WITH BASING COMMUNITY LEGISLATION ON PREVIOUS LEGISLATION IN THIS WAY. LE POIVRE (BELGIUM) SUGGESTED BASING THE REGULATION ON THE WHOLE TREATY. THIS WAS AN UNUSUAL PROCEDURE BUT WAS PERHAPS JUSTIFIED IN THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. AFTER SOME GRUMBLING FROM THE COMMISSION THIS WAS AGREED. ELLIOTT SAID THAT UK MIGHT WISH TO MAKE A **WITHOUT PREJUDICE'' STATEMENT ON THIS PROCEDURE.
RECOMMENDATION
11. THE FIGURES FOR MAXIMUM TOLERANCE IN THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION CAME UNDER GENERAL ATTACK. MOST DELEGATIONS SAW NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THEM AND NO LINK WITH EXISTING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS. GREY RAPIDLY AGREED TO A MEETING OF EXPERTS TO RE-EXAMINE THEM. THIS WILL TAKE PLACE AT 10.30 AM ON 9 MAY IN THE BERLAYMONT.
12. MARTIN SAID THAT FRANCE'S CHIEF CONCERN WAS TO LIFT THE CURRENT OBSTRUCTION TO THEIR EXPORTS AT THE ITALIAN FRONTIER (IE. GAIN AGREEMENT TO PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE RECOMMENDATION). IF THIS WAS NOT AGREED THEN THE WHOLE PACKAGE, INCLUDING THE REGULATION, FELL AND FRANCE MIGHT CONSIDER RETALIATION EG AGAINST ITALIAN WINE. GALLI
REPLIED THAT ITALIAN PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT CONTAMINATED PRODUCTS
COULD ONLY BE MET BY SOME FORMAL COMMITMENT, EG IN A DECLARATION, THAT MEMBER STATES WOULD NOT EXPORT PRODUCE CONTAMINATED TO LEVELS WHICH REQUIRED LIMITATIONS OF TRADE. THEY ALSO NEEDED FULL EXCHANGES OF RELEVANT CONTAMINATION DATA COVERING AIR, PLANT LIFE AND MILK AND
ALL REGIONS IN THE COMMUNITY. KITTEL INSISTED THAT ANY DECLARATION
MUST REFER TO OBJECTIVE TOLERANCE LEVELS, IE THOSE PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION UNTIL OTHERS WERE AVAILABLE.
-3-
CONFIDENTIAL
/13