WRITTEN QUESTION E-0823/00 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission. European school milk measure.
Date: 2000-03-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common agricultural policy, educational institution, milk, sales promotion

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/7

If, however, no settlement has been reached by the completion of accession negotiations, the Council(cid:146)s
decision on accession will be made without the above being a pre-condition. In this the Council will take
account of all relevant factors. In the accession process, each candidate country is judged on its own merits
on the basis of the same objective criteria, and the accession of one candidate is not dependent on that of
any other.

(2001/C 72 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0823/00

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: European school milk measure

the European school milk measure dating from February 1999
A report on an evaluation of
(COM(1999) 608) draws the following conclusion: (cid:145)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.(cid:146) 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1999 the Commission proposed that the measure should be adjusted rather than withdrawn.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.

How can the Commission proposal be reconciled with the subsidiarity principle (Article 5 of the EC

1.
Treaty) and with the new Commission(cid:146)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 correspond-
ing figure be under the proposed measure?

4. What financial
European Union?

impact will the proposed measure have after the proposed enlargement of the

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

In its proposal of 10 December 1999 (1), the Commission recommends maintaining Community aid
1.
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.

The Commission recognises that milk distribution in schools also contributes to health and hygiene,
2.
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.

C 72 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

At this stage, the Commission does not have the data which would enable it to quantify the impact

4.
of its proposal in the countries which have applied for membership.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000.

(2001/C 72 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0860/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Fisheries agreement with Mexico

(22 March 2000)

the EU-Mexico free trade agreement,

Following the recent signing of
the Mexican authorities have
expressed great satisfaction at the results obtained, inter alia, in the fisheries sector. Recently, a member
of the Mexican government proudly stated that Mexico had extremely extensive fishing grounds and low
levels of fish consumption (cid:129) in other words, the opposite to Europe. The same sources state that as
Mexico did not,
in the agreement, assume any obligation to grant licences to the EU, there is every
likelihood of a large increase in exports of Mexican fish to the EU.

What are the provisions on fisheries of the free trade agreement with Mexico? Does it in fact include
provision for EU vessels to be licensed to fish in Mexican waters?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The Decision adopted on 23 March 2000 by the Community-Mexico Joint Council, due to come into force
on 1 July, provides for creation of a Community-Mexico free-trade area. Most trade in fishery products (cid:129)
accounting for € 74 million and 0,3 % of total trade (cid:129) would be liberalised over a maximum of ten years.

Establishment of the free-trade area will naturally result in more trade, to the benefit of both partners. The
specific vulnerabilities of the Community industry have however been taken into account by means of
deferred or partial (imposition of quotas) liberalisation for certain products.

The trade agreement has no provisions on fishery resources. Mexico is not therefore obliged to offer
fishing licences to Community vessels. Nor does the agreement make entry into force of the trade
concessions conditional on existence of a fishery agreement. Thus any increase in Mexican fish exports
to the Community would result not from the lack of a fishery agreement but more accurately from the
free-trade agreement.

(2001/C 72 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0862/00

by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Commission view on the introduction of advertising into state educational establishments

For several years now, companies have been insinuating themselves into state educational establishments
through advertising, sponsorship, brand-names and distance teaching. This practice, which seeks to turn
schoolchildren into consumers, is now taking on worrying proportions in France and in a number of other
EU countries and is consequently undermining the established principle of equality in state education. All
too often, these private companies take advantage of the lack of resources available to teachers to do their
work.