WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2654/97 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Premium rights for suckler cows
C 134/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 4. 98 However, with regard to the measure in question (subprogramme 1, measure 2 ávarietal conversioní) it appears that Unioncoop has indeed paid out only 43. 2% of the public aid, i. e. LIT 6 798 billion (about ECU 3. 52 million), to the final beneficiaries. There remain therefore another LIT 8 913 billion (about ECU 4. 62 million) to be paid out, i. e. 56. 8% of the total for this measure. The Commission is well aware of this situation, which is having an adverse effect on the farmers who completed their work in good faith. The financial winding-up of this programme by the Community › the Ministry has already sent in its request for payment of the outstanding balance › will be reconsidered in the light of an overall check on this programme which the Commission has undertaken. In consequence, the Commission will be taking all suitable steps together with the Ministry to safeguard as far as possible the interests of the final beneficiaries. (98/C 134/20) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2654/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997) Subject: Premium rights for suckler cows On 5 July 1997 the Commission published Regulation (EC) No 1302/97 (1) amending Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 (2) laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes of the market in beef as regards certain detailed rules for the temporary leasing of suckler cow premium rights. What further plans does the Commission have to regulate sucker cow premium rights? From its research, would it agree that the benefits from suckler cows have accrued primarily to larger farmers? Last year, for example, Britainís Prince Charles was reported to have received £2 million in suckler premiums from the EU. Would the Commission be prepared to revise the scheme so that it would be of greater benefit to smaller farmers? What steps would it be prepared to take so that the scheme can be revised so that farmers benefiting will have to follow practices which are ecologically sensible? (1) OJ L 177, 5. 7. 1997, p. 5. (2) OJ L 391, 31. 12. 1992, p. 20. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997) Following the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1302/97 as mentioned by the Honourable Member, which seeks to clarify certain rules on the temporary leasing of suckler cow premium rights, the Commission has no plans at present for the further regulation of this area. The direct management of the system of premiums for bovine animals is the responsibility of the Member States. Accordingly, the Commission does not have details of the size of holdings receiving the aid. Nevertheless, since the suckler cow premium scheme is based on number of head of livestock, it may be assumed that the final amount the farmer receives is higher in the case of holdings with a large number of suckler cows. In point of fact, small farmers already qualify for exemption from the application of the stocking density factor for cattle on the holding. As for the scheme’s revision, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the section of Agenda 2000 (1) dealing with agriculture. Among the measures planned, the Commission indicates its intention to propose a ceiling on all direct income aid granted under the common organisation of the markets. In addition, the plan stresses that one of the objectives set for the common agricultural policy (CAP) is the integration of environmental goals. (1) COM (97) 2000 final