WRITTEN QUESTION E-1304/01 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. Disease-modifying Drugs.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, marketing, medicinal product, right to health, therapeutics

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?

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/235

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

the Commission has granted Community marketing authorisations

to three
As of May 2001,
beta interferons as immunostimulation agents and for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. The medicinal
product glatiramer acetate has not been submitted via the centralised procedure and the product is not yet
authorised in all Member States. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down
Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and
veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (1) and
a centralised marketing authorisation procedure for innovative therapies and therapies derived from
biotechnology is intended to facilitate the availability of such products, by allowing access to the markets
of all Member States following a single scientific assessment and the granting of a single community
marketing authorisation.

Pricing and social security related activities remain within the national competences of Member States and
are outside the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93/EC. Nonetheless the Commission monitors
the availability of all medicinal products which have community marketing authorisations to ensure that
the products are actually made available in all Member States and has verified that this is the case for the
beta interferons authorised to treat patients with multiple sclerosis.

(1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.

(2001/C 318 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1328/01

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 April 2001)

Subject: Proposal for efficient air traffic management and the Gibraltar dispute

In his speech to Parliament on 21 July 1999, the Commission President, Romano Prodi, called for the
creation of an efficient air traffic management system as an urgent European undertaking to avoid the
frequently chaotic situations in the skies over Europe caused by the constant increase in air traffic, to
improve air transport safety, to prevent pollution caused by stacking over airports and longer flying times,
and to avoid the enormous additional financial burden for airlines caused by unnecessary air traffic.

The Commissioner responsible for transport, Vice-President Loyola de Palacio, has now drawn up
a proposal for an efficient European air traffic management system on the basis of the recommendations
of the high-level group which she set up. Submission of the report, however, has been delayed by the re-
emergence of the dispute over Gibraltar. The European Council meeting on 23/24 March 2001 was unable
to find a solution to this question. Its statement that it expected to make further progress on the matter
before the European Council meets in June (Gothenburg) is not very promising. Since the dispute is
essentially one between two Member States, the matter should ultimately be left to the European Council
or the Council of Ministers but it should not hinder a long overdue practical discussion of efficient air
traffic management.

Is the Commission in a position to adopt a practical proposal for an efficient air traffic management
system and to submit it to the legislative bodies for consideration and decision?

When will the Commission finally take a decision on this proposal?

Can the Commission not avoid conflict over Gibraltar in the College by leaving that issue open and
inserting a Gibraltar clause in parentheses in the proposal, as has often been the practice in European
legislation in the past (see, for example, Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 of 29 April
1999 on the registration and operation of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes)?