WRITTEN QUESTION P-0246/01 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Internal Commission note of 12 October 1990 on BSE.
Date: 2001-01-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: administration of the Institutions, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, consumer information, consumer protection, disinformation, duties of civil servants

C 187 E/206

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

1.
Yes, the Commission is aware of the article referred to by the Honourable Member. As regards the
increase in sown surface areas, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer to Written Question
P-1382/99 by Mr Colom i Naval (1) and the Commission(cid:146)s replies to Parliament on 5 February 2001 in
connection with the budget discharge for 1999.

Yes, as it stated in a press release issued on 9 February 2001, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
2.
launched an investigation, which covered a number of Member States, in order to examine the legitimacy
and effectiveness of granting flax subsidies. It is not OLAF(cid:146)s task to establish any political responsibility.
It was only on 19 March 2001 that OLAF submitted its (cid:129) confidential (cid:129) report to Parliament and the
Commission.

3. and 5.
appropriate action as a result.

The Commission is currently examining OLAF(cid:146)s report

in detail and will certainly take

4.

6.

This question is no longer relevant as OLAF has already transmitted its report.

Yes.

The Commission considers that there is now greater openness in its relations with Parliament. Indeed
7.
that was one of the reasons why the two institutions concluded a framework agreement on 5 July 2000.

The Commission is convinced that preserving the Union(cid:146)s image is a collective task for all players involved
in the European integration process. In this context, it sets great store by the principle that any debate on
matters such as those raised in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question must be based on real, objective facts.

8. and 9.

The Commission has no reason to feel under threat.

The Commission has noted with satisfaction that, since the present Parliamentary legislature began and the
new Commission took office, the two institutions have worked together closely in a spirit of loyal
cooperation and mutual trust. It feels that this climate of understanding must be maintained, as it is vitally
important if the institutions are to play a full part in building Europe. It is sure that Parliament shares this
view.

The Commission considers that, if evidence of fraud does emerge, thought will have to be given to

10.
the question of whose responsibility it would be to pursue that fraud and to take appropriate action.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0246/01

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Internal Commission note of 12 October 1990 on BSE

(31 January 2001)

A number of press reports in recent days have quoted an internal Commission note dated 12 October 1990,
summarising the discussion in the Standing Veterinary Committee on 9 and 10 October of that year,
which also came to light while Parliament(cid:146)s committee of inquiry was conducting its investigation in 1996.

The note clearly shows that the Commission, whose mouthpiece in this instance was Mr Mansito, in fact
echoing the views of his principal superior, the then Director-General for Agriculture, Guy Legras, had
decided (cid:145)not to provoke unfavourable market responses(cid:146) and hence (cid:145)not [to] talk about BSE any more(cid:146). The
Commission(cid:146)s intention was (cid:145)to request the United Kingdom (cid:133) not to publish any more of their (sic)
research results(cid:146), and it considered that (cid:145)the BSE affair (cid:133) [had to] be minimized by using disinformation(cid:146).

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/207

Copies of the note were also sent, according to the list appearing in the note itself, to Mr Barlebo-Larsen,
Mr P. Prendergast (the current Director of the Food and Veterinary Office), and Mr D. JimØnez-BeltrÆn
(now the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency).

It is plain to see from the final report of Parliament(cid:146)s Temporary committee of inquiry into BSE that senior
officials of DG VI as staffed at that time were guilty of carrying out a policy of disinformation that not
only extended beyond the range of public opinion, but even served to impede the Community(cid:146)s ability to
legislate.

It has to be recognised that, since 1996, the Commission has taken many steps to reorganise its
departments in order to correct the processes that led to such exceedingly serious failures.

That notwithstanding, can the Commission say:

(cid:129) what have been the consequences of the (cid:145)disinformation(cid:146) strategy set out in the note?

(cid:129) whether the officials who received a copy of the note indeed attended the meeting in question and
helped to shape the disinformation strategy employed by the Commission from 1990 to 1996?

(cid:129) what action it has taken against the senior officials guilty of mishandling the BSE crisis between 1990
and 1996, bearing in mind that the only official to have been dismissed was Mr Mansito, whereas
some of the others involved are now in charge of key areas of Commission activity?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

In July 1996, the Parliament established a Temporary Committee of Inquiry into the bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE). The results of the inquiry and recommendations for the future were submitted
in February 1997. The Commission(cid:146)s responsibilities in the management of BSE were examined in detail by
the Committee of Inquiry. In this context, the Commission submitted voluminous information to the
Committee, much of which the Committee published (see Parliament document A4-0020/97 and annexes).
Commission officials also gave oral evidence to the Committee. The contents of the note referred to by the
honourable Member were well known to all participants in the Inquiry and were fully addressed in the oral
and written proceedings.

Subsequently, the Parliament established a Temporary Committee to follow up the Parliament(cid:146)s recom-
mendations concerning BSE. The Commission submitted regular reports to the Temporary Committee on
how it was following up the recommendations.

The Commission has nothing, therefore, to add to the information given to the Committee of Inquiry and
the Temporary Committee about the events of the early 1990s mentioned in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
question. Finally, it should be noted, in the interest of clarity that Mr Mansito was not dismissed from the
Commission services.

(2001/C 187 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0250/01

by Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Kurdistan and separatism

As the Commission pointed out in its reply to Written Question E-3319/00 (1), with respect to Kurdistan
the 1998 and 1999 regular reports on Turkey state that,
(cid:145)a civil solution could include recognition of
certain forms of Kurdish cultural identity and greater tolerance of the ways of expressing that identity,
provided it does not advocate separatism or terrorism(cid:146).