WRITTEN QUESTION P-1302/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Sheep subsidies and animal movements.
Date: 2001-04-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, United Kingdom, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, foot-and-mouth disease, fraud against the EU, sheep

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/233

(2001/C 318 E/254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1283/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Tax on speculative capital flows

1.

2.

Has the Commission discussed the arguments for and against a tax on speculative capital flows?

Does the Commission have any plans to propose a tax on speculative capital flows?

3. Would the Commission support any possible proposals by the Belgian Presidency to introduce a tax
on speculative capital flows?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

The Commission has recently replied to a number of Oral Questions on this subject (Questions H-0024/01
by Mr Sj(cid:246)stedt during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s February 2001 part-session (1), and Questions H-0678/
00 by Mrs Boudjenah, H-0665/00 by Mr Lipietz, H-0663/00 by Mr DØsir, and H-0661/00 by Mrs Auroi
during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s September 2000 part-session (2)).

At present, the Commission has no plans to propose a tax on speculative capital flows.

The Commission has not received any proposal from the Belgian Presidency to introduce a tax on
speculative capital flows. If such a proposal were made, the Commission would give it due consideration.

(1) Written answer, 13.2.2001.
(2) Written answer, 6.9.2000.

(2001/C 318 E/255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1302/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Sheep subsidies and animal movements

Will the Commission describe in detail the method of control used for payments under various subsidy
schemes to sheep farmers in the UK, and whether this system varies from Member State to Member State?

Is there any reason to believe that this system of payments, or its controls, has given rise to the practice of
(cid:145)bed and breakfasting(cid:146) sheep, whereby sheep are loaned for a period to a particular farm to make up the
numbers, and if so, has this system contributed to the number of animal movements, and by how much?

Has it also contributed to the spread of food and mouth disease and, if so, does the Commission propose
to suspend or change the system of control forthwith?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subsidy schemes involving direct payments to farmers, such as the ewe premium, are covered by the
Integrated Administration and Control System. This system, established in Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for
certain Community aid schemes (1), clearly sets down the control requirements, which are applicable in all

C 318 E/234

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

Member States. The competent authorities are obliged to carry out administrative checks on aid
applications, which are supplemented by on-the-spot checks covering a sample of agricultural holdings.
In so far as livestock premiums are concerned at least 10 % of claims have to be inspected on the spot.
Essentially this consists of counting the animals for which the premium has been claimed and verifying the
eligibility of the animals presented and the information contained in the register held on the farm.

The Commission regularly carries out audit visits in the Member States to ensure that the rules are being
applied correctly and in a uniform manner throughout the Community.

There is always a risk of fraud whenever subsidies are being paid. It is the responsibility of the control
authorities in the Member States to ensure that there is no abuse of the system. In order to minimize the
risk it is a requirement under the control system that any prior notice of inspection visits should be limited
to what
for example in order for farmers to gather their animals together.
Furthermore, control authorities can inspect farms in the same locality at the same time in order to
prevent animals moving between neighbouring farms. The control system provides for penalties to be
applied to farmers if abuses are detected.

is strictly necessary,

In the specific case of the sheep regime, farmers are eligible to receive the ewe premium, provided that
they keep the number of eligible animals for which they have made a claim, during a retention period of
100 days. In addition, the number of animals that may be claimed is restricted by the number of individual
quota rights held by the producer. It may occur that a farmer would buy or even lease sheep to make up
the required number, but if the animals were kept throughout the retention period he would fulfill the
conditions for receiving the premium.

the outbreak of

In the United Kingdom the retention period for 2001 began on 5 February 2001, two weeks before the
discovery of
foot-and-mouth disease. According to information from the British
authorities, the virus entered the (cid:145)primary outbreak(cid:146) of foot-and-mouth disease on a pig farm in northwest
England not earlier than 4 February 2001. Therefore, it appears highly unlikely that any movement of
sheep prior to 5 February 2001 might have contributed to any spread of the disease taking also into
account that an infected pig starts shedding virus not earlier than 2-3 days after infection.

It is important not to confuse the legitimate movements of sheep off farms with fraudulent traffic for the
purposes of claiming the ewe premium. The over-wintering of sheep on lowland farms is a normal
practice as grazing is poor on hill farms at that time of year. It is also a legitimate practice to gather sheep
together prior to being exported or sent for slaughter. In most cases this involves lambs, which in any
event are not eligible to receive the ewe premium.

The large number of movements of sheep, which occurs in the United Kingdom and Ireland in particular,
is an important characteristic of the marketing system in those Member States. It is clear that abuses have
occurred, which need to be investigated further by the appropriate authorities. However, there is no reason
to believe that the sheep regime or the control system as such have given rise to the illegal movement of
animals for the purpose of fraudulently claiming the ewe premium, and by so doing help to spread the
disease. For the most part, the widespread movement of animals that contributed to the spread of foot and
mouth disease was part of the normal trading pattern.

(1) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.

(2001/C 318 E/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1304/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Disease-modifying Drugs

Will the Commission investigate the cost and availability of beta-interferons and glatiramer acetate for
people with multiple sclerosis in each Member State? Is the Commission aware that this is a matter of deep
concern for those who suffer from multiple sclerosis?