WRITTEN QUESTION E-0512/01 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission. Comparability of social statistics between the European Union and the USA.
Date: 2001-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, United States, comparative analysis, social security, statistics

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/11

the target species. The number of wild foul caught is minuscule, even compared to the number of wild
foul taken by the pike alone. As stated above, Community subsided gill nets are not used on Lough Arrow.

7.
According to the WRFB, the balance of nature in Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra was upset by the
introduction of pike. Current efforts are to try and maintain the indigenous species in these lakes. These
lakes are of enormous importance as one of the last refugees of fast growing wild brown trout in alkaline
waters and need to be maintained as salmonid waters. This is also the desire of the vast majority of Irish
people who have lived and grown up in this area and for whom the lake, and wild brown trout in
particular, is part of their heritage.

In the NWRFB(cid:146)s view the use of gill nets does not upset the balance of nature. Gill nets are used to control
pike that are not a native species. They are removed by gill nets because they prey on trout, which are
a native species.

(2001/C 364 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0512/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Comparability of social statistics between the European Union and the USA

When the Commission publishes studies on the level of the total tax or social security burden in the
various Member States and the USA, the comparisons (cid:129) generally expressed as a percentage of GDP (cid:129)
consistently show the levels to be higher in Europe than in the USA.

However, given the appreciable differences in welfare cover between Europe and the USA, are such
comparisons relevant? Apart from the public programmes (such as Medicare and Medicaid), social security
in the USA remains largely in the private sphere, or is based on corporate schemes. Millions of Americans
of working age have no sickness insurance and do not contribute to a pension fund. Is the Commission
able to put an approximate figure to the American social welfare deficit? Would it not help improve the
comparability of welfare spending figures on both sides of the Atlantic if non-compulsory, private social
expenditure in the USA were taken into account and, in particular, if an assessment were made of the
shortfall in social security contributions by the Americans?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2001)

The Commission has addressed the issue of net expenditure on social protection in its 1997 and 1999
Reports on Social Protection in Europe on the basis of the study conducted by the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to estimate (cid:145)net social expenditure(cid:146) (1). The 1999 Report
on Social Protection in Europe states that (page 70) (cid:145)these estimations tend to be country-specific and so
there is a question about their comparability across the Union(cid:146). The estimates published in the report refer
to some Member States.

The OECD study contains these estimates for the United States too. The Commission is sending direct to
the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat a table with these data, which show that, using
OECD terminology, the overall level of (cid:145)gross public social expenditure(cid:146) is lower in the United States than
in the Member States for which data are available, while, on the other hand, (cid:145)net total social expenditure(cid:146) is
quite similar in the United States and the Member States. The main difference is that public schemes play
a more important role in the Community whilst in the United States private provision plays an important

C 364 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

role. This difference is necessarily reflected in comparisons of the level of taxes and social contributions
(paid also on social benefits) to finance mandatory public schemes because these data do not take into
account (cid:145)purely private(cid:146) expenditure by households.

On the other hand, the Commission is not in a position to assess the situation in the United States in
terms of coverage of population or needs.

Data on social protection expenditure (on the basis of gross or net data) are not sufficient to assess the
efficiency of social protection systems because they lack information on the percentage of population
covered, on the level of benefits paid to individuals, on the redistributive effects and on the real situation
of individuals in terms of their health condition.

(1) See for example Willem Adema, Net Social Expenditure, Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers, No 39,

OECD, 1999.

(2001/C 364 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Responsibility of national or local government for supervising animal protection

An official government report
((cid:145)Better animal protection(cid:146), SOU 2000:108) published in Sweden in
December 2000 states that the Swedish model, whereby animal protection is under the supervision at local
level of the local authorities, does not meet the requirements of EU Directive 90/425/EEC (1). The author of
the report maintains that, owing to EU requirements, the task of supervision must be removed from the
local authorities and proposes that responsibility should pass to the government.

The assertion that the Swedish model does not meet EU requirements has been met with astonishment,
not least by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities, which questions the report(cid:146)s claim. The Swedish
Government, however, has been pressing for a number of years to take over responsibility for local
supervision from the local authorities. Their own parliamentary group, however, is opposed, which has
meant that the government has been unable to put forward proposals. It is suspected, therefore, that it is
the government(cid:146)s own political ambitions which lie behind the report(cid:146)s conclusion rather than the EU
directive.

Does the Commission consider that the Swedish model, under which the local authorities are responsible
for local supervision, is contrary to any current EU directive?

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Article 2 of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks
applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of
the internat market, provides the following definition of competent authorities:

competent authority shall mean the central authority of a Member State competent to carry out
veterinary or zootechnical checks or any authority to which it has delegated that competence.