92001E1302

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 bed and breakfasting 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 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 is strictly necessary, 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.

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.

In the United Kingdom the retention period for 2001 began on 5 February 2001, two weeks before the discovery of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. According to information from the British authorities, the virus entered the primary outbreak 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.