WRITTEN QUESTION P-1107/01 by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Health and consumer protection.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Scotland, animal disease, approximation of laws, fish, veterinary inspection, veterinary legislation

C 340 E/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

the problems faced by the creameries in Campbeltown and Rothesay, and, should the above proposal not
be permissible, would it suggest the most practical way in which those operators might dispose of their
waste?

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, concerning urban waste water treatment (1) covers
domestic waste water sources as well as a range of industrial waste waters which does not enter urban
waste water treatment plants before discharge to water bodies.

Creameries as well as other plants of the agro-food sector are indeed addressed by the Directive, however
the provisions are limited:

(cid:129) firstly, only larger milk processing plants are covered by the Directive, i.e. those with a pollution load

of their waste water equalling a city of 4000 inhabitants or more ((cid:145)population equivalents(cid:146)).

(cid:129) secondly, the level of treatment required is flexible and largely left to Member States. Whilst for urban
waste water treatment plants the Directive established numerically defined limit values, the provisions
for milk processing plants etc., are very flexible: Member States have to ensure that such waste water
(cid:145)respects conditions established in prior regulations and/or specific authorisations(cid:146) article 13(1); the
sixth (cid:145)whereas(cid:146) clause of the preamble refers to (cid:145)appropriate treatment(cid:146) for such discharges.

As for the specific questions, the following information can be provided:

(cid:129) It is for the authorities within the United Kingdom to establish the conditions for the specific cases of
Campbeltown and Rothesay or at a general level, and to implement them within the time schedule set,
i.e. 31 December 2000. The Directive does not entail an obligation to expensive piping systems for
sea disposal but does not prohibit them either, as it is in this context very flexible.

throughout

(cid:129) As for practical solutions to waste water problem of creameries, a range of solutions exists for such
the United Kingdom and other Member States. Given the
appropriate treatment
implementation responsibility of
the British authorities as well as the technical and scientific
experience with possible solutions available in the United Kingdom, it seems appropriate to consider
such solutions with responsible bodies such as the Scottish Executive and/or the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency. The Commission would of course in this context confirm its willingness to
cooperate upon request of those authorities.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2001/C 340 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1107/01

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Health and consumer protection

1.
I would be grateful if the Commission could confirm what consultation took place with the Scottish
salmon farming industry regarding the ISA withdrawal scheme, approved under Commission Decision
2001/186.

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/173

Is the Commission aware that the epizootic study report called for in the Final Report DG(SANCO)/
2.
1148/2000, due to be delivered to the Commission by August 2000, has as yet not been delivered? Does
he acknowledge, given the gravity of the situation, that this report is seven months overdue? Is the
Commission aware that this report is likely to indicate that the ISA virus is present in between 5 % and
0,5 % of wild fish surveyed in Scottish waters, and clearly cannot now be described as exotic and should
not be listed under List 1, Directive 91/67/EEC (1), 28 January 1991 as amended, Directive 93/53/EEC (2),
24 June 1993 and Directive 93/54/EEC (3), 24 June 1993?

3.
Does the Commission believe it possible to eradicate the ISA virus from EU waters, given that it is
present in wild fish stocks and the EU shares a common water mass with Norway and Canada, where the
presence of the ISA virus is well established?

(1) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 23.
(3) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 34.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

1.
In July 2000 the United Kingdom presented to the Commission a withdrawal scheme to be applied
in Scotland in the event of an outbreak of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA). Following an in-depth
examination of the scheme certain amendments were made to improve the efficacy of the scheme. The
Standing Veterinary Committee (SVC) gave a favourable opinion on the Commission(cid:146)s proposal, which
resulted in the adoption of the scheme by Commission Decision 2001/186/EC of 27 February 2001
approving the scheme submitted by the United Kingdom for the withdrawal of all fish in Scottish farms
infected with infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) (1).

The Commission receives about 70 animal health schemes or programmes related to the control of
infectious diseases for technical evaluation each year. The ISA withdrawal scheme was subject to a technical
examination similar to other disease schemes, and included fish disease experts of the Member States in the
evaluation process.
In this particular case, Norwegian experts, who have several years experience in
diagnosing and combating ISA, were also consulted (cid:129) the National Veterinary Institute in Norway is also
the World Organisation for Animal Health(cid:146)s (OIE) reference laboratory for ISA. The Commission did not
specifically consult the Scottish salmon fish industry.

The Commission is awaiting the written epizootic report on ISA announced in relation to the
2.
mission carried out to Scotland in May 2000. However, the United Kingdom has regularly updated the
Member States and the Commission about the development of ISA in Scotland, both via the SVC and at
the Annual Meeting for the National Reference Laboratories for fish diseases. Further, Scotland gave an
exhaustive epizootiological report at the SVC in connection with the evaluation of the Scottish withdrawal
scheme. The appropriate information was judged to be available at the time for adoption of this scheme.

ISA was considered exotic to the Community until an outbreak occurred in Scotland in May 1998. The
disease had at that time already been present in Norway for about 10 years and in Canada since 1997.
During 1998 and 1999, the notified outbreaks of ISA in Scotland involved a number of sites being
infected or suspected of being infected. Scotland also reported sporadic detection of ISA in the wild
population. After implementing certain control measures (cid:129) taking into account positive experience gained
especially by Norway (cid:129) including surveillance for the disease, no further outbreaks have been reported in
Scotland since spring 1999. Scottish experts consider it possible that the disease can be eradicated from
Scottish fish farms.

Community legislation does not define that diseases referred to in list I (ISA) of the Annex A to Council
Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing
on the market of aquaculture animals and products, must be exotic to the Community.

3.
In 1991 the Council adopted Directive 91/67/EEC with the objective to have harmonised health rules
for ensuring the development of the aquaculture sector and to increase productivity. Council Directive
93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993, introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish

C 340 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

diseases, was adopted in 1993 with the main objective to establish at Community level the control
measures to be taken in the event of outbreaks of disease. The aim of this legislation was not necessarily to
eradicate ISA from Community waters, rather to prevent the spread of the disease if present and to
eradicate the agent from infected farms.

(1) OJ L 67, 9.3.2001.

(2001/C 340 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1113/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Geographical restrictions on assisted property purchase

(6 April 2001)

Is it compatible with EU law for a UK local authority to offer grants for the purchase of property to
tenants of condemned public housing, subject to the restriction that assistance will only be provided if the
property to be purchased is located within England or Wales?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

Article 56 (ex Article 73b) of the EC Treaty prohibits all restrictions on capital movements. Capital
movements would include cross border purchases of real estate. According to the jurisprudence of the
Court of Justice restrictions include indirect barriers to conducting operations such that the freedom
granted by the EC Treaty is rendered illusory. The Commission does not consider, however, that the local
authority measures cited by the Honourable Member, involving grants to tenants of condemned public
housing to purchase property within a delimited area of a Member State, are contrary to the freedom most
involved. It is the Commission(cid:146)s understanding that there is no nationality distinction made between
tenants of the condemned public housing involved. Taxation and expenditure policies at national and local
level will generally involve incentives or disincentives to conducting specific operations generally in
specific areas under the jurisdiction of the entity involved in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity
set out in Article 5 (ex Article 3b) of the EC Treaty. Thus, for instance, all
industrial grants provided
nationally or locally will involve establishment of the facility in a delimited area, rather than elsewhere
within the Community, from taxes raised in the same or similar areas. While in this case State aids could
be an issue, there has never been any question of maintaining that national measures, such as these, might
be contrary to EC Treaty freedoms.

(2001/C 340 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1114/01

by Carlos Carnero GonzÆlez (PSE) to the Council

(9 April 2001)

Subject: Anti-homosexual measures by the Namibian government

According to recent media reports, the President of Namibia, Sam Nujoma, has given orders to the police
to arrest, imprison and deport all gays and lesbians on the grounds that homosexuality is unconstitutional.

These measures are in violation of the human rights of the citizens of Namibia and contravene the basic
principles of the rule of law, and must, therefore, be considered totally unacceptable by the international
community.