WRITTEN QUESTION E-3778/02 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Drogheda Business Development Centre, Ireland.
Date: 2002-12-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, European Regional Development Fund, Ireland, application of EU law, building, economic development, growth point, sale, use of aid

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/143

(2003/C 161 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3778/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Drogheda Business Development Centre, Ireland

Further to the Commission’s answer of February 2002 to my question E-3325/01 (1), in October 2002, the
Drogheda Business Development Centre Ltd (DBDC) sold the premises which were originally grant-aided
by the EU for an Enterprise Centre, although those grants were later decommitted by the Irish
Government. The now seven private owners of the DBDC claim they will not benefit from this sale, even
if the net proceeds amount to at least EUR 2 million. Little if any control has been put in place by the State
to prevent abuse of these funds, now or in the future. No objection seems to have been raised to the sale,
even if prior permission was strictly required under the granting agreement, but was not sought by the
DBDC. And all of this despite the fact that these serious issues had been brought to the attention of the
Tánaiste, Minister for Finance and Attorney General, in great detail, by myself and others.

Does the Commission feel that this is the correct way to use the generous supports provided by the EU for
local development? Can the Commission explain why OLAF has made no serious attempt to investigate
these activities, despite being provided with full information on the matter? Can the Commission please
explain why the original answer omitted a reference to the fact that the funds had been decommitted, and
generally provided little information?

Will the Commission now insist that OLAF investigate?

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 97.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The project known as the Drogheda Enterprise Centre was initiated in 1995 with a feasibility study by a
local group entitled the Enterprise Centre for Drogheda Committee, later known as the Drogheda Business
Development Centre (DBDC).

During 1998/1999 public funding for the actual project was made available through the Local Urban and
Rural Development Programme with European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) grant aid of
EUR 63 500 and through the Interreg II Community Initiative with ERDF grant aid of EUR 158 717.

The premises in fact never became a functioning enterprise centre mainly due to additional costs involved
in making it fully operational. This fact was identified in a control report undertaken by the ERDF and
Cohesion Fund Control Unit which was established by the national authorities under Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2064/97 of 15 October 1997 establishing detailed arrangements for the implemen-
tation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as regards the financial control by Member States of
operations co-financed by the Structural Funds (1).

As a consequence thereof
the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment decommitted the
Community element of the funding and substituted purely national public funding in 2001. The intention
was to release the funds for possible use elsewhere. This action ensured that the financial interests of the
Community were safeguarded. As no Community funding remained at stake the involvement of the
European Anti-Fraud Office was no longer appropriate.

The competent Irish authorities, now solely responsible for the project, informed the Commission that
agreement had been reached between the owners of the Centre and the Department, which administered
the funding through the Louth County Enterprise Board, that the premises would be sold and the proceeds
used to purchase a new enterprise centre with any surplus funds donated to Drogheda Borough Council
for the benefit of the people of Drogheda.

C 161 E/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

The authorities have confirmed that the original premises have been sold and new premises purchased
which are now operating as an Enterprise Centre with a number of tenants already in place. The remaining
elements of the agreement in relation to the use of surplus funds are in the process of implementation.

(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(2003/C 161 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Dangers of hunting and the need for coordination of any measures taken to prevent a further

increase in fox numbers

Can the Commission confirm that heavy fertilisation of pasture land and grassed areas in leisure
1.
zones results in foxes being attracted to such areas and to a sharp increase in their numbers because
fertilisers are also conducive to a sharp rise in the number of earthworms and other sources of food for
foxes, so that more and more foxes are slowly encroaching on densely populated and heavily treated areas?

2.
Can it also confirm that the hunting of foxes results in areas attractive to foxes becoming temporarily
depopulated, and that this, in turn, leads to other foxes migrating to such areas and the further spreading
of the virus which causes rabies?

Can it confirm that the handling by hunters of the foxes that they have killed results in the spreading
3.
of the eggs of the fox tapeworm and, hence, in the direct opposite of combating disease, although that is
the regular pretext given to justify fox hunting?

4. What differences exist between the Member States of the EU with regard to the increase in fox
numbers and the manner in which that increase might be combated by means of restricting their food
sources, the licensing of or encouragement for hunting for sport or the exceptional licensing of selective
hunting which is exclusively geared to combating extreme situations?

Is there, within the EU, a coordinated policy geared towards the restricting of fox numbers by natural
5.
means and to preventing people from giving the growth in fox numbers as a pretext for hunting which
results in the unwanted consequences outlined in questions 2 and 3?

6. What is the Commission doing to prevent a persistent increase in the number of foxes, the diseases
connected with foxes and the justification for hunting for sport which serves purposes other than
combating disease and over-population?

Source: Metro, Dutch edition, 10 December 2002

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Generally speaking, the Commission does not believe that hunting is an effective way of combating animal
diseases that may be transmitted to man by wild animals.

In particular, as far as foxes are concerned, the beats organised in an attempt to stem the spread of the
rabies epidemic in the 1970s and 1980s proved to be very disappointing.

They were dropped and were replaced by campaigns to vaccinate foxes by oral means, in which effective
vaccines were developed and used on a large scale.

These vaccination campaigns, which were jointly financed by the Community, were conducted over vast
areas and produced spectacular results, with rabies being virtually eradicated throughout the territory of
the Community.