WRITTEN QUESTION E-0993/01 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Lies by Commissioner Kinnock to the Committee on Budgetary Control.
Date: 2001-03-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commissioner, duties of civil servants, fraud against the EU, interinstitutional relations (EU), parliamentary committee

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/141

(2001/C 340 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0991/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Dangerous protein in maize

Research carried out into maize seeds in the USA this year found that they contained the genetically
modified protein Starlink called Cry9c. This causes dangerous allergic reactions in humans. Will the
Commission say whether any similar research has been carried out in Europe in order to to protect the
EU(cid:146)s food supply?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

According to the american authorities, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided
not to licence the genetically modified maize variety (cid:145)StarLink(cid:146) for food use because of uncertainties
regarding its potential allergenicity. It took this decision based on the findings of two scientific panels,
which concluded that there was no evidence of an allergen, but that there was nonetheless insufficient
information to rule out potential allergenicity.

In the Community, genetically modified foods have to undergo a safety assessment under Regulation (EC)
258/97 of the Parliament and of the Counicl of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food
ingredients (1) before being placed on the market. Under this Regulation, authorisation will not be granted
if the food present a danger for the consumer, mislead the consumer or differ from foods or food
ingredients which they are intended to replace to such an extent that their normal consumption would be
nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer.

No application for the approval of the placing on the market of the Star Link maize in the Community has
been forwarded to the Commission. StarLink maize has not been approved for cultivation or food use in
the Community, and foodstuffs containing or derived from StarLink maize may therefore not be placed on
the market in the Community.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2001/C 340 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0993/01

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Lies by Commissioner Kinnock to the Committee on Budgetary Control

A letter sent to Commissioner Kinnock on 26 February 2001 by Mr Reichenbach, Director-General of
Administration, and Mr Brouwer, Director, accuses the Commissioner of having lied to the Committee on
Budgetary Control in asserting that he had not been informed by the committee of the financial difficulties,
disorganisation and fraud observed in the rebuilding of the Berlaymont building.

Can Commissioner Kinnock refute these accusations?

C 340 E/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The Honourable Member bases his question on an internal note which has come into his possession, dated
26 February 2001 and addressed to me by Horst Reichenbach, Director General of Directorate General
Administration (DG ADMIN), and Sipke Brouwer, Director in DG ADMIN.

The assertion made by the Honourable Member in his question that the authors of the note accused me of
lying to the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) is entirely unfounded.

The full record of events is as follows: on 22 February 2001 I compiled a preliminary draft statement for
my appearance at a meeting of Cocobu scheduled for 26 February 2001 and sent a copy to
Mr Reichenbach and Mr Brouwer, which they received on 23 February 2001. A phrase in the draft
statement was misinterpreted and Mr Reichenbach and Mr Brouwer expressed their misgivings in a note
which they brought to my office at the beginning of a meeting early on the morning of 26 February 2001.

At that meeting the misunderstanding was cleared up. The note was therefore written, received and dealt
with several hours before I attended the Cocobu meeting that afternoon.

The assumption on which the Honourable Member has based his question is manifestly wrong in all
respects.

The Director General of DG ADMIN fully supported the text of the statement that I delivered to Cocobu,
and was personally present during the Cocobu session in question.

On the issue of information: all dates and data in my speech were confirmed by the Commission(cid:146)s Internal
Audit Service in an independent report prepared at the beginning of February 2001. In my statement to
Cocobu, I said (cid:145)that services in DG ADMIN were informed by Berlaymont 2000 of a potentially large cost
increase of BEF 2,5 billion in January 2000. The services then had this estimate verified by the
Commission(cid:146)s external consultants. [(cid:133)] The results of that assessment were received orally in early April
2000 and in written form in a final audit report in May 2000. On the basis of that, in July last year I was
informed of the projected cost increase (cid:133)(cid:146). I will readily provide the verbatim text of my statement to
Cocobu to the Honourable Member.

The concerns which I had expressed in the draft which I sent to my services related to the lack of
information to me on these developments during the time that the verification of estimates was taking
place. With this in mind, I accurately informed Cocobu that I had (cid:145)ensured that the information flow
relevant to this issue has been intensified(cid:146) and that I had (cid:145)obtained full information on all significant
developments over the recent months(cid:146).

I did not tell Cocobu that my services had not informed me of a suspicion of potential fraud. Indeed I said
the following: an independent external analysis on (cid:145)the short-term financing arrangements for the
renovation, and of the legitimacy of payments which Berlaymont 2000 had made up to then(cid:146) was
(cid:145)provided in November in the form of a strategy paper by our external consultants. That provided me with
the first clear and fully comprehensive overview of the state of affairs. Together with my cabinet colleagues
and the Director General of DG ADMIN I naturally studied the analysis thoroughly, and we then
immediately decided to take a number of initiatives: because there was a possibility of potential fraud (cid:133),
the whole file was transmitted to OLAF on 17 November(cid:146). In short, as I accurately reported to Cocobu, I
was promptly informed of, and advised on, the concerns of my services relating to potential fraud.

The Honourable Member has made a major error of judgement in making assumptions about the nature
and context of the internal note of 26 February 2001 which had been leaked to him by an unauthorised
and unknown person. On the basis of that error of judgement, the Honourable Member has entitled his
question (cid:145)Mr Kinnock lies to Cocobu(cid:146) and spoken to the press and others of (cid:145)Kinnock(cid:146)s lies(cid:146).

There have been no lies of any kind at any time and no such accusations have been made by anyone. If
the Honourable Member is an honourable man, he will give attention to the facts and publicly withdraw
all statements making such allegations.