WRITTEN QUESTION P-0242/00 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission. Appointment of a new Commission Director-General for Agriculture.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/43 Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (23 March 2000) A detailed list and an initial assessment of the 89 territorial employment pacts launched in 1997 on the initiative of the Commission was published in the Second interim progress report on the Territorial Employment Pactsí (1). The basic approach which the Commission intends to follow during the next programming period is to encourage the consolidation of the territorial pacts and their dissemination through the operational programmes of the Structural Funds. Detailed guidelines to that end may be found in the Commissionís Guide to Territorial Employment Pacts 2000-2006í (2). (1) SEC(1999) 1932. (2) SEC(1999) 1933. (2000/C 374 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0242/00 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission (31 January 2000) Subject: Appointment of a new Commission Director-General for Agriculture In an article headlined Cynics flag up doubts over farm jobí in its issue of 13-19 January 2000, the European Voice suggests that political pressure may have been applied to secure the appointment of Mr JosØ Domingos Silva to the post of Commission Director-General for Agriculture. Can the Commission confirm that Mr Silva was appointed on the basis of individual merit and that 1. no political pressure was applied? 2. Did Members of the Commission or their services have any formal or informal contacts, written or otherwise, with any Member State government in relation to the appointment of a new Director-General for Agriculture? If so, what were the nature and contact of these contacts? When did these contacts take place? 3. Can the Commission confirm the assertion made by the European Voice that, upon his appointment, Mr Silva circulated a letter to the staff of the Directorate-General for Agriculture thanking the Vice- President of the Commission, Mrs Palacio, for her support in securing his appointment? If so, will the Commission communicate the contents of this letter to Parliament and indicate what the nature of this support was? 4. Can the Commission indicate whether the post of Director-General for Agriculture was externally advertised? Can it indicate how many applications for the post it received from internal and external applicants, and how many applicants were invited for interview? Since taking office, has the Commission adhered fully to the set of rules governing the appointment 5. of high officials? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (10 March 2000) 1. The procedure for filling the post of Director-General for Agriculture was in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Regulations and the Commission decision of 18 September 1999 on appointments to grades A1 and A2 at the Commission. The Commission can consequently confirm that the appointment of Mr Silva Rodriguez to the post of Director-General for Agriculture was due entirely to the fact that the applicantís merit, qualifications, agricultural for Agriculture since 1987 completely matched the requirements of the post. training and experience of work in the Directorate-General C 374 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 Vacancies at Director General level naturally attract broad political interest and it would be surprising 2. if opinions were not informally offered. It is, however, the Commission which clearly takes the final decision once the interview process has been completed, and does so on an objective basis following the Commission rules on nominations which require a double examination of the candidatures. 3. Following his appointment, Mr JosØ Manuel Silva Rodriguez did indeed send a letter to the staff of the Agriculture DG. However, the letter does not express any thanks to Commission Vice-President Mrs Loyola de Palacio. In his message, Mr Silva Rodriguez refers to the confidence that Mrs de Palacio has placed in him since their first meeting. He also mentions the six other Commissioners whom he has had the opportunity of meeting during the course of his Community career. The vacant post of Director-General for Agriculture was advertised inside the Commission and the 4. other European institutions as provided for under Article 29(1)(a) and (c) of the Staff Regulations. The Commission has at all times complied with all the rules governing the appointment of senior 5. officials and with its own decision of 18 September 1999, and will continue to do so. (2000/C 374 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0245/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (7 February 2000) Subject: Refund of resources lost owing to a shortfall in tobacco deliveries The rules governing the common organisation of the market in tobacco provide that, if after the deliveries of all varieties of tobacco, the overall amount delivered is found to be less than the overall quota allocated to the country concerned, supplementary deliveries entitled to premiums up to the size of the overall quota are not permitted. Given that frequently, mainly owing to unfavourable weather conditions, production falls below the quota level and that this measure applicable to deliveries merely means a loss of aid and a reduction in the incomes of tobacco producers. Will the Commission say: 1. Does it intend to consider whether the resources lost owing to a shortfall in tobacco deliveries might be refunded to the tobacco sector? 2. Will it allow additional deliveries with premium entitlements? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 March 2000) Current Community legislation on tobacco does not provide for reacquisition of appropriations lost following a shortfall in tobacco deliveries. Where tobacco deliveries are entitled to a premium, Article 16(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/ 98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the premium scheme, production quotas and the specific aid to be granted to producer groups in the raw tobacco sector (1) stipulates that, except in cases of force majeure, producers must deliver their entire production to the first processor by 30 April of the year following the year of harvest for the groups of varieties VI, VII and VIII and by 15 April of the year following the year of harvest for the other groups of varieties, failing which they will lose their entitlement to the premium. However, Article 27(4) of the same Regulation provides that producers who had an abnormally low harvest during the reference period because of bad weather do not lose the right to their quota