WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2648/98 by John McCARTIN to the Commission. Export of pig offal from Northern Ireland
28. 6. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 182/15 Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1998) A number of Member States failed to meet the final objectives of the third multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGP III), either globally or for certain segments of the fleet. Any backlog from the MAGP III must be made up during MAGP IV under the same conditions that applied during the MAGP III. Meanwhile, no construction or modernisation aid will be made available to any segment of the fleet until the global MAGP objectives have been met. If the global objectives have been met, such aid would be denied to those segments for which the segment objectives have not been met. Concerning the three Member States specifically mentioned, France has made special efforts to remove capacity during 1998 and is expected to achieve the global MAGP III objectives before the end of 1998. It should be noted that this means that France would also be within the first intermediate objective of the MAGP IV. Similarly the United Kingdom has now achieved the global objectives of its MAGP. In the case of the Netherlands the Commission is carefully monitoring the steps being taken by the Dutch authorities to achieve the MAGP objectives, but maintains the possibity of legal action if these steps prove to be unsatisfactory. (1999/C 182/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2648/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1998) Subject: Export of pig offal from Northern Ireland Is the Commission aware that the Irish Department of Agriculture has refused to grant import licences to companies in Ireland wishing to import pig offal from Northern Ireland, despite the North Ireland authorities clearly stating that the material in question (sourced from porcine animals) is not included under Commission Decision 97/534 (1) as amended by Council Decision 98/248 (2) on specified risk material? Can the Commission state whether this refusal is contrary to Community law on free trade? (1) OJ L 216, 8. 8. 1997, p. 95. (2) OJ L 102, 2. 4. 1998, p. 26. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 October 1998) The Commission was unaware, prior to the receipt of the Honourable Member’s question, of any particular problems concerning the movement of porcine offal from Northern Ireland to Ireland. The Commission will contact the national authorities in order to obtain details of the situation. It should be noted that the Community decisions mentioned by the Honourable Member are not applicable, because they do not apply to porcine meat or offal, and in any case the date for applicability has been postponed until 1 January 1999 by the latter decision. In the case of porcine offal fit for human consumption, free circulation is governed by Council Directive 95/23/EC of 22 June 1995 amending Directive 64/433/EEC on conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat (1). Other provisions apply to products not fit for human consumption. Once the factual background is clarified, the Commission will examine whether the action by the Irish authorities necessitates its further intervention. (1) OJ L 243, 11. 10. 1995