WRITTEN QUESTION E-1165/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Failure to implement the 2001 animal health campaign for livestock in Galicia; Galician Government's dismissal of 129 vets employed in the scheme.
Date: 2002-04-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Galicia, collective dismissal, decontamination, fund (EU), health certificate, livestock, report, veterinarian, working conditions

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/189

(2002/C 229 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1165/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 April 2002)

Subject: Failure to implement

the 2001 animal health campaign for livestock in Galicia; Galician

Government’s dismissal of 129 vets employed in the scheme

The Galician Association of Livestock Veterinarians (AVESGA) reports that the Galician Government has
not implemented the animal health campaign for livestock in Galicia planned for 2001. The reasons are to
be found in the reduction in the number of veterinary surgeons involved, from the 150 needed for the
campaign to only 129, because of the failure to replace vets unfit for work, and in the fact that some of
those vets spent the first six months of the year issuing certificates in the wake of the mad cow crisis. In
addition, on 31 December 2001 all the vets responsible for carrying out the campaign were dismissed, and
the Government prevented them from bringing any of
their work to a conclusion. The Galician
Government ended the employment relationship with the vets after the Employment and Social Security
Inspectorate 1 in response to complaints from the vets regarding the precarious terms on which they were
working 1 ordered the Galician Government to draw up contracts of employment to put an end to the
earlier irregular situation in which they had been working for the Galician Government for some years.
Even though the Galician Court of Justice itself recognised the existence of an employment relationship in
January 2002, the Government refused to accept it. The conduct of the Galician Government, acting
through the Directorate-General for Animal Production and Health in the State Secretariat for Agriculture,
which has rejected any dialogue, appears to be a form of retaliation, and it does not appear to be
concerned at the fact that it may be jeopardising the fulfilment of the targets set for the health campaign.
In 2001, 42 % of cattle farms and 41 % of sheep and goat farms had yet to be covered, which means that
335 000 cows and 131 000 sheep did not have the health records required for the movement of animals
within Galicia or outside the region, a situation which may have other consequences in health and
insurance terms. Moreover,
the Galician Government also contracted other professionals, apparently
without regard to the conditions laid down in law. The government further used a firm, named TRAGSA,
to carry out health-related tasks for which it does not appear to have had the necessary capacity, and many
farms were not processed at all.

Is the Commission, and specifically its Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection and the
Commissioner responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development, aware of these irregularities on the part
of the Galician Government’s State Secretariat for Agriculture, which are jeopardising the health campaign
for livestock at a time when we are seeing the emergence of new diseases such as bovine spongiform
encephalopathy?

What measures is it prepared to take to ensure that the Community animal health programmes affected by
this irresponsible conduct are complied with?

Is the Commission aware that the Galician Government’s State Secretariat
for Agriculture used the
cancellation of the employment relationship and disciplinary sanctions against veterinary professionals 1
whose claims have been accepted by the courts and refused by the Government, to the extent that they did
not receive their salaries on time 1 as an opportunity to favour TRAGSA, an inexperienced private firm,
to the detriment of the animal health programme being carried out as part of Community programmes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2002)

Current Community legislation includes several provisions on eradication programmes co-financed with
Community funds.

Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1) provides for the
possibility of financial participation by the Community in the eradication and monitoring of animal
diseases and for checks aimed at the prevention of zoonoses. Each year Member States submit programmes
for the eradication of animal diseases and for the prevention of zoonoses in their countries. After

C 229 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

if they are found to comply with Council Decision 90/638/EEC of
examination of the programmes,
27 November 1990 laying down Community criteria for the eradication and monitoring of certain animal
diseases (2), these programmes are approved by the Commission and the rate of Community financial
contribution is fixed.

Commission Decision 2000/774/EC of 30 November 2000 approved the programmes for the eradication
and monitoring of animal diseases and for the prevention of zoonoses presented for the year 2001 by the
Member States (3). Article 48 of the Decision provides that the financial contribution of the Community for
the programmes shall be granted subject to requirements related to national legislation and sets a calendar
for reports to the Commission. These reports include the technical and financial preliminary report,
intermediate reports after the end of each reporting period, and a final report by 1 June 2002 at the latest,
on the technical execution of the programme accompanied by justifying evidence of the costs incurred and
the results attained during the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001.

The Spanish authorities sent the preliminary and technical evaluation of the approved programmes and
also the intermediate reports on time. The Final Report, including information for the whole year of 2001,
must be sent by 1 June 2002. The final assessment of the Spanish programmes will be done in the light of
the final report. This assessment will
include a thorough examination of the concerns raised by the
Honourable Member.

Reimbursement of funds is also subject to the evaluation by the Commission of reports from the Food and
Veterinary Office, which is responsible for carrying out on-the-spot inspections, financial
inspections
carried out by the Commission and also the outcome of the visits of the Task Force on eradication
programmes.

Community measures, in case of non-fulfilment of relevant aspects of the eradication programmes, are
foreseen in the above-mentioned legislation (Article 24 of Council Decision 90/424/EEC and Article 52 of
Commission Decision 2000/774/EC) and are related to the Community’s financial contribution.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
(2) OJ L 347, 12.12.1990.
(3) OJ L 308, 8.12.2000.

(2002/C 229 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1166/02

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 April 2002)

Subject: Furniture directive

In the mid-1990s, an ambitious research study was carried out into fire-safety for furniture. Several
European research establishments and standardisation agencies were involved in the process which resulted
in a proposal for a ‘furniture directive’ (EUR 16477 EN). However, since the proposals on fire-safety
standards for furniture met with opposition in some Member States, the matter was shelved. There is,
nevertheless, a need for common standards in this area.

Does the Commission intend to reconsider the question of furniture fire safety on the basis of the existing
research?

Answer given by Mr Byrne On behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

In the absence of specific Community provisions, the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) has
drawn up four standards on the fire resistance of upholstered furniture. This work, conducted with the
financial assistance of the Commission, concerns flammability test methods. For further details on the
general situation, the Honourable Member is referred to the answers given by the Commission to Written
Questions P-0055/01 from Mrs Corbey (1) and E-1212/00 from Mr Whitehead (2).