WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/01 by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission. Use of Article B5-810.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, EU migration policy, admission of aliens, aid to refugees, refugee

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

C 318 E/158

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

and Pacific (ACP) countries, may benefit from Member States(cid:146) action relating to reception conditions,
integration and voluntary repatriation and resettlement in the country of origin.

For the budget years 2000 and 2001 available credits for the Fund of € 56 million under budget line
B5-810 were allocated to Member States on the basis of the method foreseen in Article 10 of the Decision.
This method takes into account the specific number of persons, targeted by European Refugee Fund
action, who must have entered the Member States in the course of 1997, 1998 and 1999.

Member States are responsible for the implementation of action supported by the Fund including the
selection of actions and their financial management and administration except for 5 % of the funds used
for financing project of Community interest. The Commission is not in a position yet to give any
indication regarding the nationality of the Fund(cid:146)s beneficiaries.
It has to be noted anyway that no
discrimination is made on the grounds of citizenship of any particular third country.

(1) OJ L 252, 6.10.2000.

(2001/C 318 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0947/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Flame retardant ban

1. Will the Commission indicate the progress of its proposals to ban some brominated flame retardants
from use and specify which Member States, if any, oppose the Commission proposals?

2. When does it expect to be able to announce a ban, and what dangers does it foresee for consumers if
delays continue?

Is the Commission satisfied, given the current scientific evidence, that the extent of its proposed ban

3.
is adequate to ensure consumer safety. If so, why?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers provided to previous Written
Questions on the same subject E-0033/01 by Mr Meijer (1), E-2616/00 by Mr Davies (2), E-2504/99 by
Mrs Thors (3), P-1976/99 by Mrs Sch(cid:246)rling (4), E-3004/98 by Mr Eisma (5) and to the Oral Question H-776/
99 by Mrs Sch(cid:246)rling during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s December 1999 part-session (6).

1.
The Commission adopted on 15 January 2001 a proposal to ban the use of a brominated flame-
retardant, pentabromodiphenyl ether, from 1 July 2003 (7). The proposed Directive, amending for the 24
time Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous
substances and preparations (8), has been forwarded to the Parliament and the Council for final adoption
according to Article 251 (ex Article 189b) of the EC Treaty. The Commission(cid:146)s proposal has been subject to
a preliminary examination by the Council Working Party (cid:145)Technical Harmonisation(cid:146). The Parliament has
not yet given its opinion in its first reading.

The Commission(cid:146)s proposal is based on the Commission Recommendation of 5 March 2001 (9) on the
results of the risk assessment and risk reduction strategy for the substance in the framework of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of existing substances (10).
The Commission(cid:146)s Recommendation was unanimously endorsed by the Member States.