WRITTEN QUESTION E-0823/00

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: European school milk measure

A report on an evaluation of the European school milk measure dating from February 1999 (COM(1999) 608) draws the following conclusion: Judged purely against the current, stated documented objectives of the measure that focus principally on maintaining and increasing consumption of milk products and as a surplus disposal tool, the measure has had a marginal positive impact and represents poor value for money in comparison to alternative methods of surplus disposal used. This suggests that the Commission should give serious consideration to withdrawing the measure. Despite this, on 10 December 1999 the Commission proposed that the measure should be adjusted rather than withdrawn. The proposal reduces the Community contribution from 95 % to 50 % of the cost. The remainder of the cost is to be borne by Member States. The Commission bases its proposal on Community objectives relating to public health.

1. How can the Commission proposal be reconciled with the subsidiarity principle (Article 5 of the EC Treaty) and with the new Commission's intention of restricting its work to core responsibilities?

2. What scientifically justified public-health objectives does the Commission proposal pursue, and to what extent do/will the existing and proposed measures really help to attain them?

3. What percentage of the school milk budget is spent on administration? What would the corresponding figure be under the proposed measure?

4. What financial impact will the proposed measure have after the proposed enlargement of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

1. In its proposal of 10 December 1999(1), the Commission recommends maintaining Community aid for milk distribution in schools, but at a reduced level and part-financed by the Member States. This aid is granted within the framework of the common organisation of the market in the milk and milk products sector and is justified by its direct and indirect impact on milk product consumption. The aid scheme contributes to implementing the CAP and falls therefore within the responsibilities conferred on the Community as such.

2. The Commission recognises that milk distribution in schools also contributes to health and hygiene, food policy and social objectives, but it equally considers, for these very reasons, that Community aid paid out of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), should be supplemented by a national contribution. The evaluation report cited by the Honourable Member looks into the other objectives referred to above and relates them to the context of the school-milk scheme.

3. The budget allocated to the school-milk scheme is intended in its entirety to provide a discount on the sales price of milk products distributed in schools. Management of the scheme is in the hands of national bodies whose running costs are the responsibility of the national authorities. The Commission proposal does not change this situation.

4. At this stage, the Commission does not have the data which would enable it to quantify the impact of its proposal in the countries which have applied for membership.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000.