WRITTEN QUESTION E-0107/01 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council. Failure of Ireland to appoint an ombudsman for farming.
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Ombudsman, Ireland, competence of the Member States, mediator

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/119

government which is paying the relevant compensation to cattle farmers. Besides the fact that withdrawal
prices differ, in some instances cattle farmers are entitled to or denied additional aid such as payments for
loss of income. It is furthermore apparent that in some cases the administrative authorities bear the cost of
withdrawing livestock or the SRM of head of cattle which have died on farms and provide safety
guarantees for the transfer and subsequent slaughter thereof, whereas elsewhere this cost is incurred by
the farmer (by and large a smallholder with 15 or so head of cattle).

Is the Commission aware of the aforementioned situation?

Will it provide information on the prices and compensation paid to cattle farmers in EU Member States for
the withdrawal of cattle earmarked for slaughter? Furthermore, in which Member States is the cost of
withdrawing cattle and SRM borne by farmers?

In its view, would it not be more appropriate to harmonise the compensation made available, as well as
the systems and responsibility for destroying cattle and SRM, at European level?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2001)

No Community legislation provides for obligatory slaughter of animals aged more than 30 months and
such animals are not considered as specific risk material (SRM) except with regard to the parts of the
animal
listed as SRM in Commission Decision 2000/418/EC of 29 June 2000 regulating the use of
material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/
474/EC (1).

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures
for the beef market (2) was not adopted solely in order to encourage testing of over thirty months of age
(OTM) animals but also as a market support measure to remove animals from the beef market, which
otherwise would be slaughtered for consumption and thereby make the imbalanced supply situation even
worse. The financing of the scheme is shared between the Commission and national authorities according
to specific rules laid down in that Regulation.

As to the actual payment under the purchase for destruction scheme within the basic rules of Article 4 of
the above-mentioned Regulation, prices logically vary as a function of category, quality and prevailing
market prices. With regard to the farmers(cid:146) contribution to the destruction costs, the Commission has only
provisional indications, but it is currently seeking further information on the subject.

The Commission has constantly reminded Member States that unless provided for in Community
legislation, national financing of measures or compensations in relation to BSE must be notified and
dealt with in accordance with Community law. The Commission will shortly present a report with a view
to ensuring the proper functioning of the Internal Market.

(1) OJ L 158, 30.6.2000.
(2) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000.

(2001/C 235 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0107/01

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Failure of Ireland to appoint an ombudsman for farming

Why has Ireland not appointed an ombudsman for farming?

C 235 E/120

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The European Parliament shall appoint an Ombudsman after each election of the European Parliament for
the duration of its term of office. The Ombudsman presently in office is M. Jacob S(cid:246)derman. He receives
complaints and conducts inquiries concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the
Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First
Instance acting in their judicial role.

The particular question concerning Ireland and the appointment of an ombudsman for farming raised by
the Honourable Member is a matter of national competence and does not fall within the competence of
the Community.

(2001/C 235 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0111/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Whistle-blowers (1): their socially useful function in solving problems in large and small organisa-

tions

1.
Does the Commission agree that transparency and public discussion have always proved the most
effective means of focusing attention on suspected abuse within organisations and that such attention can
help prevent the problems remaining unresolved for a long time?

2. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the idea that it is defensible for persons with knowledge of abuse
to delay the transparency approach referred to in question 1 only, and for as long as, it is certain that the
problems in question are limited in scope and/or that they can be rapidly and effectively resolved within
the organisation itself?

3.
Does the Commission acknowledge that it is a predictable, and virtually inevitable, desire on the part
of managers of all types of organisations to keep instances of abuse that come to light concealed from the
public, to deny the problems or to delay resolving them, and that as a result it often happens that criticism
and information which do not fit in with this approach are not appreciated?

4.
Does the Commission also acknowledge that because of the desire referred to in question 3 serious
conflict may arise between, on the one hand, the management(cid:146)s desire for peace and quiet in the
organisation in question and, on the other, the socially useful role of (cid:145)whistle-blowers(cid:146)?

5. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the consequences of the conflict referred to in question 4 for
whistle-blowers whose livelihood depends on the organisation within which they work and who accord-
ingly may be afraid of being punished with dismissal or demotion as bringers of bad news?

6.
Does the Commission agree that its civil service apparatus should not be an exception to the rule
that society as a whole benefits from encouraging the speedy application of solutions to problems, from
the ending of undesirable developments and from public discussion of the best way of working?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission considers transparency to be an essential quality of modern public administration. It gives
high priority to providing information to citizens on its activities and remains committed to the principle
of giving citizens the greatest possible access to information and documents.

In relation to the public disclosure of concerns about maladministration and potential wrongdoings, the
Commission shares the view of the Committee of Independent Experts that an effective balance between
the public interests of confidentiality and loyalty of public servants and those of transparency and
accountability must be achieved. Indeed, the principal aim of (cid:145)whistleblowing(cid:146) provisions is to provide an
incentive for staff to report concerns internally, and for their employer to investigate those concerns
effectively. The Commission believes that this applies with equal force to the EU Institutions.