WRITTEN QUESTION E-1162/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
Date: 2001-04-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: budget financing, enlargement of the Union, financial control, reform of the CAP

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/217

According to Council Directive 89/107/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States concerning food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs intended for human
consumption (1), a food additive may be used only if, inter alia, it assists in the manufacture, processing,
treatment, packing, transport or storage of food, and provided that it is not used to disguise the effects of
the use of faulty raw materials or of undesirable (including unhygienic) practices or techniques during the
course of any of these activities.

It should be noted that the product specification for the (cid:145)Grana Padano(cid:146) protected designation of origin
(PDO) states that the milk is to be coagulated by adding natural siero-innesto and/or enzymes.

The use of lysozyme in the production of (cid:145)Grana Padano(cid:146) and (cid:145)Parmigiano Reggiano(cid:146) cheeses is, therefore,
possible within the limits described above and does not in itself constitute a breach of Community law.

In any event, Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the
production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products (2) prohibits
the use of milk failing to meet the criteria laid down in the Directive for the purpose of producing cheeses.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
(2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992.

(2001/C 318 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1162/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy

(19 April 2001)

Would the Commission agree that the most obvious deficiency in the Treaty of Nice in terms of its
preparing the European Union for enlargement was its complete failure to address the need for
thoroughgoing reform of both the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the current distribution of
structural funds?

If so, and bearing in mind the extremely thoughtful comments of Commissioner Fischler on the need for
urgent reform of the CAP, as well as the calls from a number of senior political figures in both Britain and
Germany to this effect over recent weeks, has the Commission considered the advantages of effectively
nationalising the CAP so that each country would be free to protect its farmers and rural communities
(subject to rules over competition and State aid regarding exports to other EU States) but where taxpayers
from some Member States would no longer be required to subsidise the agricultural sectors of other
Member States, thus reducing at a stroke many of the problems associated with the entry of large new
agricultural States such as Poland to the EU, the high levels of fraud and wasteful subsidy associated with
the current regime and reducing considerably the anti-European feeling that has been generated in Britain
and Germany, in particular, over the hugely inequitable budget contributions of those countries over a long
period of time, largely as a result of the distortions of the Common Agricultural Policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

It is the Commission(cid:146)s view that the Treaty of Nice met the tasks that the Intergovernmental Conference
(IGC) set itself, namely the institutional preparation of the Union for enlargement. Furthermore, it would
have been too early to have had a sound discussion on the further development of two key policies of the
Union. This is, nevertheless, an important debate that will have to take place in developing the next
financial perspective.

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s question raises three aspects of renationalisation (cid:129) responsibility for policy
implementation, budgetary costs and financial control.

C 318 E/218

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

In Agenda 2000 the Commission proposed significant changes to the management of the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP). This included greater flexibility for beef premia and modulation. Member States
were broadly against the introduction of national envelopes for beef, while the possibility to modulate,
i.e. to shift from direct payments to rural development programmes managed at the lowest appropriate
level in Member States has been little exploited to date, particularly in Germany. There would therefore
currently appear little consensus within the Member States for a significant renationalisation of policy
implementation.

The Commission presented in autumn 1998 a report on the functioning of the own resources system (1).
In this technical report, the Commission presented the co-financing of agricultural direct payments as one
potential option for correcting budgetary imbalances. This possibility along with degressivity of direct
payments was discussed in the framework of the Agenda 2000 package. However, neither was applied in
the final agreement. It is possible that such a discussion returns in the context of the mid-term review.

As the Court of Auditors has made clear on many occasions, most of the irregularities relating to CAP
expenditure take place at a national level. As far as the Community Institutions are concerned, exercises
undertaken by the Commission such as Sound and efficient financial management (SEM) 2000 and the
scrutiny of the Parliament have helped to greatly improve the probity of European public expenditure.

(1) COM(98) 560 final.

(2001/C 318 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1163/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: European Round Table of Industrialists

What EU money or support is provided to the EU Round Table of Industrialists?

On what occasions to date has it met with representatives of the Commission to discuss policies over
2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The Commission does not provide any financial or other support to the European Round Table of
Industrialists (ERT).
It is, however, possible that individual members of the ERT are participating in
Commission programmes in their own right.

A number of meetings have taken place between representatives of the European Round Table of
Industrialists and Members of the Commission since the new Commission started in 1999, including the
President. These meetings are part of the general consultation process the Commission has engaged with
civil society.

Discussions in general were focussed on issues related to enterprise and competition policies, but also
other areas of EU policy.

As well as these meetings at high level, there have been other, occasional working-level contacts between
members of the ERT and Commission staff.