WRITTEN QUESTION E-2969/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Making school milk an integral feature of a healthy food policy.
Date: 2000-09-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, educational institution, milk, sales promotion

C 151 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund to 75 %. Yet it is more sensible to offer schoolchildren free
milk instead of leading them astray with Fanta or Cola machines supplied by the soft drinks industry. It
therefore seems appropriate to transfer the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the (cid:145)healthy
food policy(cid:146) programme.

Will the Council encourage transferring the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the (cid:145)healthy
food policy(cid:146) programme, given the particular interest in this subject expressed by the Commission and the
Member States? If not, why is the Council of the opinion that the remaining 25 % should not be charged
to the (cid:145)healthy food policy(cid:146) budget? How does the Council reconcile this position with the statement by
(cid:145)distribution of milk in schools can help achieve nutritional and social
Commissioner Fischler that
objectives(cid:146) (answer to Written Question E-1320/00 (1))?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 126.

Reply

(22 December 2000)

The decision taken by the Council to reduce Community funding for the school milk programme to 75 %
is in keeping with the Opinion of the European Parliament.

The Council would point out that its decision allows Member States to increase aid for the school milk
programme to cover the remaining 25 % with a view to steering this measure towards a (cid:145)healthy food
policy(cid:146).

At this stage, the Council has not received any proposal to allocate the 25 % reduction in Community
funding to a budgetary heading reserved for such a policy.

(2001/C 151 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2969/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Making school milk an integral feature of a healthy food policy

Because the school milk programme contributes to the objectives in respect of food and health policy, the
Commission and the Ministers of Agriculture have decided to reduce subsidies under the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund to 75 %. Yet it is more sensible to offer schoolchildren free
milk instead of leading them astray with Fanta or Cola machines supplied by the soft drinks industry. It
therefore seems appropriate to transfer the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the (cid:145)healthy
food policy(cid:146) programme.

Will the Commission encourage transferring the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the
(cid:145)healthy food policy(cid:146) programme, given the particular interest in this subject expressed by the Commission
and the Member States? If not, why is the Commission of the opinion that the remaining 25 % should not
be charged to the (cid:145)healthy food policy(cid:146) budget? How does the Commission reconcile this position with the
statement by Commissioner Fischler that (cid:145)distribution of milk in schools can help achieve nutritional and
social objectives(cid:146) (answer to Written Question E-1320/00 (1))?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 126.

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/33

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

In the explanatory memorandum attached to the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation
(EC) No 1255/1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1) that has
resulted in the Council(cid:146)s decision to reduce the school milk subsidy to 75 % of the milk target price
(Council Regulation (EC) No 1670/2000 of 20 July 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 (2)), the
Commission has indeed recognized that this scheme could also play a role within broader general policy
objectives in the health, nutritional or social fields set and operated at Community or Member State level.
However, the Commission has also underlined that the Community(cid:146)s tight budgetary situation, irrespective
of whether it relates to agriculture expenditure or to other policies, does not allow for greater involvement
in the school milk scheme.

The question of topping up the above Community subsidy is, therefore, a matter to be examined at
Member States(cid:146) level, possibly in cooperation with other interested parties. The Community regulation on
school milk provides indeed for a legal basis allowing for additional national aid, which may be financed
by means of a contribution collected from the dairy sector. Moreover, such participation would be
consistent with the strong interest and vocal support for school milk expressed by the latter during the
discussions on the Commission(cid:146)s proposal.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2970/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Incomplete information about the composition of the Council

1.
Is the Council aware that in the list of members of the Council of the European Union, distributed
for the part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg from 4 to 8 September, the following names
are given for the Netherlands: Dr A. Peper, as Minister of Foreign Affairs and National Relations; K.G. de
Vries, as Minister of Social Affairs and Employment; and Dr W.A.F.G. Vermeend, as Deputy Minister of
Finance?

2.
Can you conform that the first-mentioned person in question 1 ceased to hold the post in question
on 13 March 2000 and that the other two persons have been responsible for other policy areas since
24 March 2000? What is the reason fort continuing to refer to them as members of the Council, when
continued participation on their part in the relevant councils of specialist ministers would be illegal?

Can you also explain why all ministers and deputy ministers are listed with their forenames and
3.
(with the exception of Germany and Austria) without their academic titles, while all the Dutch members of
the Council appear without forenames but with academic titles?

What is the reason for giving the Dutch members of the Council a special status of relative anonymity,
with the impression of greater distance from the people they are supposed to represent?

Are you prepared to work towards ensuring that subsequent lists of members of the Council are up-

4.
to-dated and uniform in nature?