WRITTEN QUESTION P-0941/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Unequal treatment in the livestock crisis.
Date: 2001-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, beef, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, health policy, slaughter of animals

C 318 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

to be delayed, that renovation is not likely to be completed before the end of 2003, and that the delays are
likely to give rise to cost increases.

The Commission has consequently undertaken, and continues to undertake, specific auditing activities. It
has also referred a particular concern to the European Anti-fraud office (OLAF) and has intensified contacts
with the Belgian Government which, as a result, is also taking an active role in securing more satisfactory
progress with the project.

The Commission has not signed any contract relating to the building. In July 1997 the Commission signed
a Memorandum of Understanding with the Belgian State and the not-for-profit development company S.A.
Berlaymont 2000 (70 % owned by the Belgian State and 30 % owned by two banks). That Memorandum
included the provision that the Commission would only return to the building and bear relevant costs of
renovation works if renovation was completed satisfactorily and according to best practice.

The Commission has made no conclusive undertaking to the other parties on costs, and it has made clear
that it will not bear any direct or indirect costs which may arise as a result of mismanagement by S.A.
Berlaymont 2000, including extra costs due to delays.

Legal proceedings between S.A. Berlaymont 2000 and some of its contractors are currently taking place.
Among the issues which have given rise to those proceedings are disputes between those parties about
responsibility for delays and for related extra costs.

Preliminary negotiations relating to the possibility of agreeing a satisfactory and secure contract on the
Berlaymont renovation with the Belgian State are underway. As the Vice-President of the Commission,
Mr Kinnock, has reported, Parliament will be informed about progress of these negotiations.

(2001/C 318 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0941/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Unequal treatment in the livestock crisis

In order to tackle the BSE crisis, the Commission has proposed that ITL 2 000 billion be set aside for 14 EU
Member States. It has also decided that cattle herds in which there have been cases of BSE should be
slaughtered, to varying extents from country to country. This has spread panic amongst both breeders and
consumers and given the impression that the Commission is blindly groping in the dark.

Given that the transmission of the disease to humans appears to have been scientifically ruled out, does the
Commission not consider the destruction of vast swathes of livestock to be both pointless and harmful?
What are the scientific grounds for its decision?

How can it consider the appropriation of ITL 2 000 billion for 14 countries to be adequate, when in 1995
it earmarked 6000 billion for Great Britain alone, without managing to curb the epidemic, which since
then has spread to the rest of Europe?

Given the high number of animals slaughtered because of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease, why does the
Commission not consider allowing the free transfer of milk quotas between Member States,
to
counterbalance the growing milk production shortages by increasing the percentage of imported milk?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Scientists believe that there is a very close link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the
human disease known as (cid:145)new variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease(cid:146), although no direct causal relationship has
yet been demonstrated.

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/157

At the moment, there is no Community rule in force that would make it compulsory to slaughter an entire
herd when a case of BSE has been diagnosed. For the time being, each Member State applies its own
policy.

When considering the draft Regulation on BSE (1), Parliament introduced an amendment in the provision
for eradicating the disease, by proposing the slaughter of the entire herd. This proposal for a Regulation is
at present undergoing its second reading before Parliament.

At all events, compulsory slaughter of any animals that may have been contaminated either in the original
or in the present herd (including descendants) is a necessary measure to ensure that all potentially infected
animals are kept out of the food chain.

The Commission would point out that the 2001 budget appropriation for beef and veal has been increased
by € 971 million, to cover the cost of additional measures linked to the BSE crisis (December 2000
package). The estimated additional costs of the Commission proposal of 13 February 2001 on the
common organisation of the market in beef and veal (2) would be € 157 million in 2001 and € 1 145
million in 2002. This estimate is based on the assumption that consumption would drop by 10 % in 2001
and 7 % in 2002 compared to normal. If the drop were greater, the costs to the Community budget would
probably be higher.

On the matter of costs linked to the previous BSE crises, the Commission would point out that there was
no expenditure linked to BSE in the 1995 budget (the crisis broke at the end of March 1996). As to
Community budget expenditure in 1996 and 1997, costs attributable to BSE (including public aid) were of
the order of € 1 675 million and € 1 830 million respectively. The amounts paid to the United Kingdom
were € 380 million in 1996 and € 780 million in 1997, with the remainder paid to other Member States.

The Commission would stress that the merits of a proposal cannot be judged solely on the basis of its
financial impact, but rather on its potential for addressing the problems. Furthermore, the Commission
fully intends to comply with ceilings for Heading 1 (Agriculture) as set out in the financial perspective.

It is not feasible to transfer milk quotas between Member States without calling into question the basis of
the rules on quotas as laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92. In any case, it is very rare for
a Member State(cid:146)s quota to remain unused.

(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.1999, later amended by COM(2000) 824 final.
(2) COM(2001) 87 final.

(2001/C 318 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/01

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Use of Article B5-810

Article B-5810 is aimed at supporting measures to benefit refugees who have found temporary asylum in
the European Union.

How have the allocated financial resources been used, especially as far as expatriates from ACP States are
concerned?

Have the ACP authorities or civil society organisations been involved in the actual allocation of these
funds?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

In accordance with Council Decision 2000/596/EC of 28 September 2000 establishing a European
Refugee Fund (1), all persons defined in Article 3 of the Decision, including citizens of African, Caribbean