WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/00 by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission. Budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of false subsidies.
Date: 2000-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, budgetary classification, fraud against the EU

26.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 26 E/39

toxicology test methods(cid:146) on 4 March 1999 (4). The Committee concluded that, for human health effects,
(cid:145)there are associations between endocrine disrupting chemicals, so far investigated, and human health
disturbances(cid:146) such as testicular, breast and prostate cancers, decline in sperm counts, deformities of the
reproductive organs, thyroid dysfunction as well as intelligence and neurological problems. However,
a causative role has not been verified.

(1) COM(1999) 706 final.
(2) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999.
(3) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(4)

Internet address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/sct/out37_en.html.

(2001/C 26 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/00

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of false subsidies

As the answer to Written Question P-2367/99 (1) on budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of
false subsidies indicates that Mrs Schreyer failed to understand the first question, I shall rephrase it as
follows:

1.
According to the Committee of Independent Experts, (cid:145)with regard to subsidies, the Part A/Part B
nomenclature, far from leading to clarity, adds to the confusion(cid:146), as a result of which (cid:145)a large
proportion of subsidies are in fact disguised contracts(cid:146). The Committee states even more clearly, in
recommendation 4, that (cid:145)the present budget nomenclature, based on the distinction necessitated by
The Financial Regulation between Part A (administrative expenditure) and Part B (operating expendi-
ture) is impracticable. It is frequently circumvented when appropriations are earmarked under the
budget(cid:146). Would the Commission therefore simply state whether or not it intends to retain, with regard
to subsidies, the Part A / Part B nomenclature?

As the Commissioner did not even try to answer my second question, I shall rephrase it as follows:

2. Which subsidies disguised as contracts were brought to the Committee(cid:146)s attention, who were
those responsible, what steps does the Commission intend to take and according to what time-scale?
The Committee of Independent Experts(cid:146) second report states that (cid:145)a large proportion of subsidies are
in fact disguised contracts(cid:146). To the best of the Commission(cid:146)s knowledge, was this statement based on
the Independent Experts(cid:146) impressions, and in that case, what does the Commission intend to do to
defend its own reputation? Or was the statement made on the basis of objective findings, and if so,
does the Commission intend to ascertain where responsibility lies and take action in respect of those
responsible?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 115.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

1. With the current budgetary nomenclature laid down in the financial regulation the Commission
budget is separated into two global parts (cid:129) Part A for administrative expenditure and Part B for
operational expenditure. As the scope and size of the Community budget has evolved,
this global
separation has become blurred and it no longer provides adequate clarity and transparency to the actual
allocation and reporting of resources.

In the framework of activity based budgeting, the Commission is studying possible changes to the budget
nomenclature. These changes will aim to introduce a policy-driven budget and to increase the transparency
of the Commission budget. However, for sound management reasons the Commission continues to regard
a distinct separation of administrative and operational expenditure in the implementation of the budget of
primary importance, but does not have the intention to retain the present Part A and Part B division.

C 26 E/40

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.1.2001

Progress can only be achieved gradually since it involves revising the financial regulation. Furthermore, as
the current
financial perspectives include a separate heading which regroups all the (cid:145)Administrative
expenditure(cid:146) of the different institutions (heading 5), a solution would need to be found at the interinstitu-
tional level.

2.
No particular (cid:145)subsidies disguised as contracts(cid:146) were brought to the Commission(cid:146)s attention by the
committee of independent experts. The committee were making the general point that they disagreed with
the Commission(cid:146)s distinction in its expenditure coding between a grant and a contract for procurement
spending on the grounds that, as most grants involved a quid pro quo, they too were in fact a kind of
contract. The Commission accepts that most grants do involve a quid pro quo and mutual obligations of a
contractual type, but not that they can therefore be assimilated to procurement spending, and so does not
accept the term (cid:145)false subsidy(cid:146).

The Commission has already laid down guidelines, within the framework of the vademecum on grant
management (1)
for differentiating between (cid:145)grants(cid:146) and
(cid:145)procurement spending(cid:146), with the same basic principles of transparency and equality of treatment applying
to both types of expenditure.

that came into force on 1 January 1999,

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/intro_funding.htm.

(2001/C 26 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Research and testing using animals

What is the Commission(cid:146)s position with regard to research and testing live animals. What action is the
Commission taking to reduce such testing?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the protection of animals used for experimental
and other scientific purposes (1) lays down the provisions to be followed when animals are used for
research and testing.

Concerning the Community research programmes, the 5th Framework Programme (Decision 182/1999/
EC) (2) states in Article 7 that (cid:145)All research activities conducted pursuant to the 5th Framework Programme
shall be carried out in compliance with fundamental ethical principles including animal welfare require-
ments, in conformity with Community law.(cid:146)

Under the programme (cid:145)Quality of Life and management of living resources(cid:146), the researchers must apply the
principles of replacement by alternative methods, reduction of the number of animals and refinement of
experiments. Animal suffering must be avoided or kept to a minimum. These principles must be applied
particularly rigorously to animal species that are the closest to human beings. A specific ethical review is
performed for all projects raising ethical issues, including those involving non-human primates.

The number of animals used for regulatory testing is approximately 9 % of the total number of animals
used in experiments. This can be deduced from the latest Commission report established in accordance
with Directive 86/609/EEC.
In order to reduce the number of animals for regulatory testing the
Commission promotes alternative testing methods requiring either fewer animals or no animals at all
(by using in vitro and computer-based methods).