WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/01 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Market in beef.
Date: 2001-02-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural surplus, beef, common agricultural policy, farm income, market intervention, market support, production surplus

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/47

(2001/C 318 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 February 2001)

Subject: Hainaut Objective 1 region

According to the Commission, it is still too soon to say how many businesses based in West Flanders will
move their registered offices to Hainaut in order to obtain European subsidies for the programme period
2000-2006. Between 1994 and 1999 about fifty businesses apparently surrendered to the enticement to
move from Flanders to Hainaut.

Can the Commission state:

1. What businesses are involved?

2. Why these West Flanders businesses have relocated in Hainaut, bearing in mind that (cid:145)the Community(cid:146)s
has (cid:133) a particular interest where a firm undertaking a relocation has been supported by public funds
either in its present or future location(cid:146)?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0408/01 and E-0459/01
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Within the context of an Objective 1 programme, such as the one for the province of Hainaut in Belgium,
support to enterprises can be given only in case of investments which are implemented in the geographical
programme area. Whether or not a company has its registered office within or outside the programme
area is irrelevant when it comes to the possible eligibility of its investments for support under the
programme. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the study suggested by the Honourable
Member, which would focus on changes of registered offices, is not a useful way of gauging the possible
impacts of the Hainaut Objective 1 programme.

The impact of the programme,
in terms of the location of production or service facilities, could be
considered only at the level of decisions of companies to invest in the programme area. However,
investment decisions are guided by a multitude of factors. It would most probably be difficult, if not
impossible, at micro-economic level to single out the role of an Objective 1 programme in such decisions.
Moreover, counterbalancing effects would have to be taken into account, since large areas of the province
of West-Vlaanderen itself are eligible for support under the Objective 2 programme (cid:145)Kustgebied-Westhoek(cid:146).

In any case,
it would be premature now to consider the question whether the Hainaut 2000-2006
programme will lead to a shift of investments from West-Vlaanderen to Hainaut: this issue could only be
addressed after a substantial part of the programme has been implemented.

Concerning the 1994-1999 programming period, the Commission will address a request to the authorities
of the Walloon Region, requesting a list of enterprises which have their registered office in West-Flanders
and have benefited from support for investments in the context of the 1994-1999 Hainaut Objective 1
programme.

(2001/C 318 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Market in beef

In view of the obvious reduction in the consumption of beef in the European Union, has the Commission
estimated the amount of beef required for internal consumption in the EU in the medium term, and has it

C 318 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

considered the possibility of paying increased subsidies towards a reduction in the numbers of suckler
cows in order to reduce subsidised exports and/or the destruction of beef while simultaneously maintaining
rural incomes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The Commission, as part of its preparatory work for the presentation of a series of measures aimed at re-
balancing the beef market, has estimated the surplus of beef on the Community market to be 785 000
tonnes (t) in 2001, 360 000 t in 2002 and 80 000 t in 2003.

The package of measures, which was discussed at the Agricultural Council of 26 February 2001, consisted
of two main elements. Firstly, measures are proposed, which would have the effect of lowering the level of
production and discouraging intensive methods of production. This would be achieved through more
restrictive rules on suckler cow regime, but particularly in the special beef premium. Secondly, the
remaining surplus would be absorbed by increased levels of intervention, totalling 925 000 t over the three
years in question.

The Commission believes that, given the self-imposed budgetary limitations placed on the common
agricultural policy (CAP) in the Berlin Agreement, such an approach, coupled with the necessary health
protection measures put in place, appears as the only solution to the current crisis. The Commission
therefore considers that, owing to that budgetary limitation, it is not possible to reach the objectives of
reduced exportation and destruction of beef by increasing subsidy levels.

(2001/C 318 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/01

by JosØ PomØs Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Appointment of Director-General for Economic and Financial Affairs

On 15 January 2001, Renouveau et DØmocratie reported that the post of Director-General for Economic
and Financial Affairs is to be filled by somebody currently working in a German ministry.

In view of this, will the Commission please answer the following questions:

(cid:129) Is there nobody currently working in the Commission who is qualified to occupy this post?

(cid:129) Why was the post not advertised internally before being opened to candidates outside the

Commission, in accordance with the normal procedure?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2001)

In order to widen its choice of candidates for the post of Director-General for Economic and Financial
Affairs the Commission decided to publish the post in question within the Institution, within the other
Institutions and externally, with advertisements in the national and international press as well as in the
specialised press. The Commission has proceeded in a similar manner since September 1999 on three
occasions when seeking applicants for the Heads of the European anti-fraud office (OLAF), the Joint
Research Centre and the Internal Audit Service.

The Consultative Committee for Appointments, assisted by three independent experts of international
reputation in economic and monetary policy, together with management consultants, established a short-
list of candidates which it considered to be those most qualified for the post.