92001E2107

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2107/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Adulteration in the dairy industry

In paragraph 42 of its replies to the Court of Auditors' Special Report No 1/1999, the Commission states that the recovery of funds will be verified in the clearance of accounts procedure.

In the discharge procedure, the Committee on Budgetary Control, in point 2(7) of its questionnaire No 2, asked the Commission to confirm that it had proceeded to recover the sums concerned from the Netherlands authorities.

Instead of replying to the question, the Commission chose to comment on a different procedure, relating to Belgium.

As the Commission did not reply on the first occasion, the author of the present question put the original question to it a second time. The Commission's answer (to Written Question E-1001/01(1)) may be summarised as follows:

(a) the Commission had chosen to provide information on a different point because it felt this was more important than the question actually asked;

(b) in its answer to the Court of Auditors' Special Report No 1/1999 the Commission had stated that the sum concerned had been reimbursed;

(c) what was involved was only some 0,002 % of the total quantity of skimmed-milk powder incorporated in 1997 into compound feedingstuffs in the Netherlands.

Point (a) is truly surprising in the attitude it reveals on the Commission's part to parliamentary questions; point (b) does not correspond to the facts, as should be clear from the material cited above. (Point c) leads the author of this question to ask two further questions, namely:

- Does the Commission not consider the fact that the amount of 3 350 kg of skimmed-milk powder represents only 0,002 % of the total incorporated in 1997 into compound feedingstuffs in the Netherlands to be genuinely disturbing, in view of the public funds wasted on aberrant foodstuff destruction schemes?

- Does the Commission not consider that the total absence of effective controls on adulteration in the foodstuff sector, as exemplified by the scores of thousands of tonnes of adulterated butter which have gone undetected by the Commission, makes it legitimate to conclude that checks have been operated on only a tiny proportion of all milk powder, rather than that cases of adulteration have been but few?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2106/01 and E-2107/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Honourable Member is in these two questions indicating that the Commission has not replied to earlier questions concerning the follow-up of some of the Court of Auditors' findings published in Special Report No 1/99(1) concerning the aid for use of skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder (SMP) as animal feed.

The Commission is of the view that all these questions have in fact been thoroughly replied to within the procedure for granting discharge to the Commission for the financial year 1999 and in the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1001/01.

But as these replies have been given at different stages, it may be appropriate to shortly summarise the situation.

The two written questions put by the Honourable Member deal with two findings of the Court of Auditors concerning the Nederlands, presented in points 36 and 42 of the above-mentioned special report:

- In the first finding (point 36 of the special report) the Court of Auditors had indicated a lack of the control of buttermilk supplied to a German farm by a Dutch beneficiary. In its reply to the special report the Commission stated that it would follow-up the Court of Auditors' findings within the clearance of accounts procedure and, if confirmed, that it might lead to financial corrections. In the Commission reply to point 2.7 (a) of the second questionnaire for the 1999 discharge it was clearly stated that a follow-up had been undertaken by the European anti-fraud office (OLAF). On two missions OLAF had examined the matter both at the premises of the Dutch buttermilk producer and at the premises of the German recipient. OLAF concluded that there were no grounds for suspecting that anything irregular had occurred. The Commission must repeat that there was therefore no question of recovery action.

- The Court of Auditors' second finding concerned a case (point 42 of the special report) where it had found that 3350 kilograms (Kg) of SMP had been treated as eligible for aid, despite the fact that the analysis report indicated that whey was present. In the Commission reply to the Court of Auditors' report it was said that the Dutch authorities had stated that the payment

had been recovered. The Commission indicated that it would verify this within the clearance of accounts procedure. The Commission recognises, as pointed out by the Honorable Member, that this case was not covered by the Commission reply to the second questionnaire for the 1999 discharge, but only in the Commission reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1001/01. In this the Commission stated that the unduly paid amount of NLG 5 136,89 in respect of the 3350 Kg of SMP had in fact been credited to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in December 1997. Therefore the question of any financial corrections to be imposed on the Member State does not apply. The Commission is puzzled about the Honourable Member's statement in Written Question E-2107/01 that the facts should be different.

The above-mentioned replies to Written Question E-2106/01 and also to the initial parts of Written Question E-2107/01.

For the two last points raised in Written Question E-2107/01, the Commission would like to point out the following:

- In relation to the case of the 3 350 kg of SMP it is important to note that in the Commission's risk analysis for the controls of aid schemes one element is the actual amount at stake. In this context the Commission does not find it genuinely disturbing that an amount of NLG 5 136,89 ( 2 331) had been unduly paid and later recovered so that the EAGGF fund did not suffer any loss.

- Finally, the Commission cannot see how findings concerning adulterated butter can lead to the conclusions drawn by the Honourable Member in relation to aid to SMP.

(1) OJ C 147, 27.5.1999.