TNAG-1497-FCO40-2055-Guangdong-nuclear-power-station-project-at-Daya-Bay-safety-c-1986 — Page 117

CERTIFICATION.

6. A COMPLICATED ARGUMENT.

I PRESSED FIRMLY FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF

CERTIFICATION, EITHER AT A COMMUNITY LEVEL OR BY MEMBER STATES, T BE COVERED IN THE REGULATION. WE BELIEVED THAT SPOT CHECKS NEEDED TO

BE SUPPLEMENTED IN THIS WAY FOR PRODUCE EMANATING FROM CERTAIN THIRD

COUNTRIES. SCHEER (FRANCE) AND LARSEN TOOK MUCH THE SAME LINE

ALTHOUGH LARSEN MADE IT CLEAR THAT DENMARK COULD NOT ACCEPT

COMMUNITY CERTIFICATION. BESELER (COMMISION) SAID THAT NATIONAL

CERTIFICATION WAS UNACCEPTABLE. THIRD COUNTRIES WOULD BE CONFRONTED

WITH 12 DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, AND THERE WOULD BE DIVERSION OF TRADE AS EXPORTERS SOUGHT TO GET THEIR PRODUCE ADMITTED TO THE COMMUNITY

THROUGH THE LAXEST REGIME. HE WAS SUPPORTED IN THIS APPROACH BY

UNGERER (GERMANY) AND RUTTEN (PRESIDENCY). BESELER EMPHASISED THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATION WAS CATERED FOR THROUGH

THE ARTICLE 6 PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING AND MODIFYING THE REGULATION, AND EXPRESSED HIMSELF WILLING EXPLICITLY TO WRITE THIS

IN.

7. THE DISCUSSION THEN VEERED OFF INTO THE QUESTION OF WHAT RIGHT

MEMBER STATES HAD E.G. TO STOP ALL CONSIGNMENTS OF POLISH HAM IF, ON A SPOT CHECK, ONE WAS FOUND TO BE CONTAMINATED. BESELER MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS IN THE ESSENCE OF THE SPOT CHECK SYSTEM THAT MEMBER STATES HAD SUCH A RIGHT WHILE THEY BROUGHT THE MATTER TO THE

ATTENTION OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WHICH SHOULD THEN AGREE A

COMMUNITY APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. RUTTEN ARGUED THAT IF CONTAMINATED POLISH HAM TURNED UP IN ONE MEMBER STATE, IT WAS LIKELY

TO TURN UP IN OTHERS SO THAT THE DELAY BETWEN THE IMPOSITION OF

NATIONAL LEVELS AND OF COMMUNITY LEVELS WAS UNLIKELY TO BE VERY

LONG.

8. I SUGGESTED THAT THE SAME APPROACH MIGHT WORK FOR CERTIFICATION.

AN ENTRY IN THE MINUTES MIGHT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS WAS AN OPTION

OPEN TO MEMBER STATES UNTIL A COMMUNITY APPROACH WAS AGREED. THE

COMMISSION AND PRESIDENCY MAINTAINED THEIR OPPOSITION. BESELER MADE IT CLEAR THAT IN HIS VIEW CERTIFICATION HAD TO BE ON A COMMUNITY BASIS AND SHOULD BE OFFERED TO THIRD COUNTRIES FROM WHOM NO TROUBLE WAS EXPECTED (E.G. EFTA) AS A WAY OF CUTTING DOWN THE SPOT CHECKS OF

THEIR PRODUCE.

IMPLEMENTATION AND MODIFICATION PROCEDURES.

9. RUTTEN POINTED OUT THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE WHOLE TREATY AS THE LEGAL BASIS HAD IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE PROCEDURE ENVISAGED IN ARTICLE 6. SCHEER AGREED, AS DID LARSEN WHO SAID THAT FOR REASONS OF PRINCIPLE DENMARK COULD NOT AGREE TO DEROGATE AUTHORITY FROM THE COUNCIL TO THE COMMISSION ON MATTERS CONCERNING PUBLIC HEALTH. BESELER EMPHASISED THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR WHICH A MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE STRUCTURE RATHER THAN A COUNCIL WORKING GROUP WAS THE RIGHT SORT OF BODY. IT WAS EVENTUALLY AGREED TO MODIFY ARTICLE 6 SO THAT IT ESTABLISHED AN AD HOC TECHNICAL GROUP COMPOSED AS IN ARTICLE 29 OF REGULATION 804/68 AND USING THE PROCEDURES OF ARTICLE 30 OF THAT

2 CONFIDENTIAL

/REGULATION