WRITTEN QUESTION E-0696/01 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Suckler cow premiums.
Date: 2001-03-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Wales, common agricultural policy, production aid, suckler cow

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/71

The Council has reiterated the importance it attaches to an early start to the national dialogue, as foreseen
in the Lusaka Agreement and recalled the support that the European Union and its Member States give to
the process of national dialogue as well as its readiness to continue to support its institutional framework.

The Council has expressed its deep concern over the continuing serious human rights violations in the
DRC and reminded the governments concerned of their responsibility and accountability for upholding the
respect for human rights by their own armed forces as well as by the armed forces under their de facto
control.

In the Council Joint Action appointing the European Union(cid:146)s Special Representative, Mr Ajello, reference is
indeed made to an international conference on peace, stability, democracy and development in the African
Great Lakes Region to be held at an appropriate time, but the Council has not pronounced itself on this
question yet.

The Commission has recently indicated its wish to gradually resume development co-operation through
a progressive resumption of aid, cut off since 1992, and by freeing credits from the 7th and 8th European
Development Fund (EDF) namely € 120 million. These funds should act to accompany the peace process
and will be granted in relation to the progress accomplished by the Congolese authorities in the peace
process and in the transition towards democracy.

(2001/C 340 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0696/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 March 2001)

Subject: Suckler cow premiums

Would the Council agree that the recent (cid:145)7 point plan(cid:146) for the UK is unfavourable to beef production in
the UK, and especially for Wales? Given the proposal to reduce the number of productive suckler cows
eligible for the suckler cow premium, the UK will be affected disproportionately (cid:129) with 18 % of the
suckler cows population in the UK compared with only 11 % of total EU beef production.

Does the Council accept that it is unfair that the UK has to introduce these changes when we already have
in place an over thirty month scheme that has removed animals from the market for the last five years?

Does the Council also accept that reducing the number of suckler cows in the market will have a negative
effect on consumers as it will reduce the higher quality beef being produced for the European consumer?

Is it not also illogical to further concentrate beef production from dairy herds where a much higher
incidence of BSE has occurred.

Finally, will the Council look again at the calf slaughter premium scheme? This scheme can be carried out
at lower cost than the other measures being proposed by the Commission such as the change to the
suckler cow scheme. It will remove the lower quality animals from the market and will also have a more
rapid impact in the re-balancing of the market.

Reply

(13 July 2001)

The Council has received a proposal concerning amendments to the CMO for beef and veal, with the aim
of adapting production to the reduction in demand due to a lack of consumer confidence following the
BSE crisis.

C 340 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

is currently under
This proposal, on which the European Parliament
examination at the Council. It would therefore be premature for the Council to state its position on the
matters raised by the Honourable Member.

to deliver its opinion,

is yet

The Council will in any case take account of the opinion of the European Parliament before acting on the
proposal.

(2001/C 340 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 March 2001)

Subject: UK involvement in the bombing of Baghdad

Will the Council be supporting UK involvement in the bombing of Baghdad?

Would the Council not agree that the citizens of Iraq have already suffered enough following the economic
embargo, and that further air attacks by the USA and Britain will only add to their suffering, and that in
the name of democracy and human rights these attacks should be condemned?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

The Council has no common position on the issue of the (cid:145)no-fly zones(cid:146) in Iraq, including the bombings
referred to in the question.

The Council considers it important to prevent the Iraqi Government from again acquiring weapons of
mass destruction and recalls its full support for the relevant UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq,
including resolution 1284/99. The Council agrees, however, that there is a need to alleviate the suffering
of the Iraqi people resulting from the implementation of these sanctions. The (cid:145)oil-for-food(cid:146) program is of
crucial importance in this context and the Council hopes that the implementation of the program could be
streamlined in accordance with the recommendations by the UN Secretary-General. Within the framework
of the UNSC resolutions, the Council is examining possibilities for further EU action in the humanitarian
and cultural fields.

The Council also notes that the full cooperation of the Iraqi Government with the UN would lead to
a suspension and eventual lifting of sanctions in accordance with the provisions of UNSC resolution 1284.
The Council hopes that the recent contacts between the UN Secretary-General and representatives of the
Iraqi Government will promote such cooperation in the future.

The Council has also noted with interest the discussions in the UN Security Council about improving the
effectiveness of
including better targeting, and thereby avoiding unnecessary human
suffering.

the sanctions,

(2001/C 340 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0702/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 March 2001)

Subject: The Serbian government(cid:146)s commitment to human rights and accountability

In view of the appointment of Colonel Sreten Lukic as Chief of Public Security and Deputy Interior
Minister, is the Council aware that this raises concerns regarding the Serbian government(cid:146)s commitment to
human rights and accountability?