WRITTEN QUESTION P-3978/97 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission (9 December 1997)

Subject: Reports of the illegal export of British beef from Belgium to Zaire, with export subsidies, in August 1996

The Flemish press has published a copy of a document showing that scarcely five months after the European Union banned the export of British beef from EU Member States to non-member countries (Decision 96/239 ((OJ L 78, 28.3.1996, p. 47. )), subsequently amended by Decision 96/362 ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996, p. 17. ))) in August 1996 a firm in Zele managed to export 36 tonnes of British beef to the then Zaire, with the knowledge and express approval of a member of the staff of the office of the Belgian Minster of Public Health.

The staff member concerned apparently pressurized Belgian veterinary inspectors to sign the certificates required for the export of British beef and payment of export subsidies by the BIRB (Belgian intervention and refund office).

If the report is correct, it appears that eleven months before news of the beef fraud scandal broke on 2 July 1997 and exactly a year before the discovery of British beef intended for Belarus at a firm in Zele (25 August 1997), the staff of the Public Health Minister's office and IVK veterinary inspectors knew of the presence of British beef in Belgium. This means that the fraud and dirty dealings involving British beef in Belgian have in fact been dragging on for years and on a much larger scale than hitherto assumed.

1. Was the Commission aware, before these reports appeared in the press, that British beef was being exported from Belgium in 1996? If so, what action did it take? If not, does it intend to act now?

2. How can it explain that it was not until one year after the facts outlined above that action was taken against the firm in Zele, after discovery of a further consignment of British beef intended for Belarus?

3. Does it have an overview of the licences granted to the firm concerned for exports to non-member countries on which export refunds were paid? Will it provide me with details of the quantities of meat exported, the export refunds allocated and paid and the names and location of the consignees?

4. How does it intend to tackle the beef fraud as a whole to stop the illegal export of British beef?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (6 February 1998)

It must first be pointed out that the total ban on the export of beef from the United Kingdom to the other Member States and to third countries did not enter into force until Decision 96/239/EEC of 27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy. All UK meat exported prior to this date was not covered by an embargo.

That being the case, the Commission can provide the following answers to the Honourable Member's questions.

1. The answer is no. However, the information currently available to the Commission does not indicate that the meat in question was imported into Belgium after the embargo had been introduced.

2. According to the information available to the Commission, the batches intended for Zaire and Byelorussia did not violate the embargo.

The Belgian authorities notified the Commission of the measures taken against the firm mentioned. These measures comprised the decision of 25 August 1997 to stop supplies of beef from this firm following irregularities under Belgian health legislation, the lifting of this sanction after an investigation had been carried out, and the granting of a new authorisation on 17 November 1997 accompanied by permanent veterinary checks.

3. European legislation does not provide for the Commission to have lists of the authorisations which, in this case, come under the jurisdiction of the national authorities.

4. The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that the recent events have above all revealed shortcomings in the checks carried out by the Member States. However, the Commission is keeping a constant watch on developments on the ground, notably by means of the reports drawn up by its inspection services, and proposes adjustments to legislation whenever it considers them to be necessary.