Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.5.3-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"In answer to the first part of your question, Mrs Jackson, I believe that the very opposite is the case. Rather than throwing President Prodi’s plans for a food safety agency into chaos, it highlights the very need for such an agency at Community level. We are working on that very point in my service at the moment. Not only are we concerned to identify and establish its level of competence but also it would be of considerable importance to identify clearly and mark out the jurisdiction that the food safety agency would have at Community level and how it will interact with the agencies at Member State level. It will be important to identify where the function of one begins and ends and dovetails with the other. Once that has been clearly established, in my belief, the problem that we have seen over the last four or five weeks should not arise again.
I should emphasise also that, what we are engaged in now, and the exercise that is going to be undertaken on Friday and the subsequent days is, as I have said, a clarification. It is not a negotiation. A negotiation implies that two parties come to a negotiating table, each with their own views, and something comes out of it at the end which reflects both their views. What we are engaged in here is an exercise in clarification of the five points that I have referred to. The French authorities have not unreasonably requested more information in relation to these very important issues. Most of them are a request for information as to how the date-based export scheme actually operates, both on a practical level and on a technical level. My service is perfectly happy and willing to give that information to the French authorities. Civil servants from the UK will also be involved. There are practical considerations involved in how the issue works on the ground which are necessary to explain. So I am perfectly satisfied that it is more accurate to refer to this exercise as a clarification.
In the event that my statement that the clear implication of this exercise is that there will be a lifting of the ban turns out to be incorrect, then, as I have said from the very beginning when we first saw this issue on Friday 1 October, there would be the initiation of infringement proceedings. That remains my view. I have said on numerous occasions since then that court proceedings would be the last option. I believe it is much better to achieve a result by discussion with the parties so as to ensure that everybody understands what is involved. That is the exercise we are engaged in at the moment. In the event that does not yield results, then my view that it is appropriate to bring infringement proceedings will prevail."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples