Of the four major European Union(EU) institutions only the Commission has so far played a major role in the Anglo-French beef trade dispute. All four may become embroiled if the European Parliament prevents the French finding a political solution in the European Council. And Britain may yet have to take its case directly to the European Court of Justice.

The administration of European programs of all hues is the domain of the Commission. Hence, the lead role being played by David Byrne, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection and his Directorate General(DG) XXIV. It was DG XXIV that administered the program for the lifting of the post BSE export ban on British beef, lifted the ban, and DG XXIV's Scientific Steering Committee that dismissed France's new food safety agencies claim to have new evidence on BSE on which it justified its ban on British beef imports.

It was, of course, David Byrne who brokered the protocol which at one stage appeared to have resolved the problem. It was cruel irony that this effort to keep the lid on things has exposed the short comings of DG XXIV and its programs.

France's concern about triangular or third party, as opposed to direct, trade in British beef exposed the fact that of the 15 member states only France, Spain and the UK had meat traceability programs. A 1997 EU regulation requires all member states to have national meat traceability programs in place by December 31, 1999. Under normal circumstances over runs of a few months or even years are the norm and nobody gets excited. Things are a little different this time around.

Since August 1 1999 it has supposedly been illegal for any members state to ban imports of British beef, but after January 1, 1999 it will probably be illegal for any member state but France and Spain to import it. Further, it may be perfectly legal for a member state to ban meat imports from a member state which does not have a meat traceability program in place. With so many sparks flying it is a dangerously inflammable situation and a particularly uncommon market.

It is also the responsibility of DG XXIV "to deliver a reasoned opinion" on France's import ban to the European Court of Justice. This was in process when the most recent turn in events occurred. DG XXIV's credibility in this role now looks very suspect. It seems most likely that the role of taking the issue to the Court of Justice will fall to the UK, once the three-month grace period for the Commission to do the job has expired in mid February. This assumes, of course, a political solution has not been found by then.

Waiting in the wings to play its part is the European Parliament. As recently as 1997 it came close to passing a motion of censure on the Commission for failing to handle the BSE crisis efficiently and transparently. In contrast to agriculture, food safety issues are subject to co- responsibility decision making involving the European Parliament.

The immediate priority for the Commission is a regulation deferring the deadline for member state's implementation of meat traceability programs. In the past this would have been handled in cosy discussion between the Commission and the European Council which would have ensured that member states interests were accommodated.

Quite how the Parliament will impose it presence on this situation remains to be seen. Its responsibilities are to the EU itself rather than its members. The wait, however, will not be long as deadlines are close at hand and there is a meeting of the Council in Helsinki next month.

The French government and its new food safety agency appear to be in no hurry to back out of what for some time has looked like a legal cul-de-sac. It is quite possible that they have plans for a political solution at Helsinki. If these plans do not take account of the intrusion of the European Parliament, they may be frustrated. And the UK may yet have its day in the European Court of Justice.

top of page