In its report A4-0066/99 on the Commission communication on the EU-India Enhanced Partnership, the European Parliament calls on the Council and the Commission to make relations with India one of the EU's foreign policy priorities and 'to propose to the Indian Government the holding of an annual Euro-Indian Summit'. In October of this year the Commission (in the person of Mr Patten, Commissioner) expressed its determination to work towards establishing an EU-India strategic relationship. For a number of reasons - starting with the need to signal a complete break with the climate of relative indifference which has so far characterised EU-India relations and the urgent requirement for account to be taken of the extremely worrying developments taking place within the Chinese communist government and the consequent urgent need for India to be made the focal point of the EU's policy on Asia - the convening of an initial annual EU-India Summit could take on the utmost political significance.

Does the High Representative responsible for the CFSP share this view?

If so, could he indicate what action he has taken (or is intending to take) in order to ensure that the foundations of an EU-India strategic relationship are laid in the very near future?

In particular, is he prepared to do everything possible to enable an initial annual EU-India Summit to take place as early as next year?

The Council pays enormous attention to the on-going development of relations between the EU and India and actively works to achieve this by remaining in regular high level contact with our Indian partners. The EU is already India’s most important trade partner and its main source of aid in development cooperation. The last round of talks with leading Ministers and officials was held in Helsinki on 2 and 3 December 1999. During that round, many questions of interest and concern to both sides were discussed. These include the issue of cooperation in such areas as human rights, the environment, organised crime and terrorism, illicit drugs trafficking, dialogue on civil society, development trends in investment and trade, international issues such as security, a block on arms, the decommissioning of weapons, regional development in South Asia, and the views for the future that Europe and Asia share for the 21st century.

The next country to hold the Presidency, Portugal, has also made a proposal to hold a Summit meeting between the EU and India during their presidential term, and the General Affairs Council, which was held on 6 December, viewed the proposal positively. India has supported this proposal, and the Commission and the Secretariat are examining options with regard to the Indian Summit.

Police harassment in the USA has increasingly come under the spotlight in recent years. The problem has been confirmed by bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. As a result of police excesses, US citizen Ritt Goldstein in 1995 set up a citizens action group in Connecticut to set up external monitoring of the police by independent surveillance bodies. This made Goldstein himself the target of comprehensive police harassment, which forced him to leave the USA and apply for asylum in Sweden in the summer of 1997. His request was rejected in December 1998 as 'clearly without foundation'. The Swedish authorities did not question the severe harassment suffered by Goldstein but referred to the USA as 'an internationally recognised democracy in which the rule of law applied'. They also claimed that Goldstein had not been subject to State persecution as the perpetrators had been individual police officers. At the EU Summit in Tampere, the Council stated that EU refugee policy would be based on 'the full and inclusive application' of the Geneva Convention on Refugees, which should mean that all requests for asylum would be examined individually regardless of the country of origin and regardless whether the applicant had been subject to State or other persecution.

Does the Council consider that requests for asylum from US citizens may be rejected as 'clearly without foundation' without full examination of the individual case? Does it consider that 'unofficial' persecution does not entitle a person to refugee status under the Geneva Convention?

As the Honourable Member will certainly know, ideas about what constitutes a ‘safe country of origin’ and applications for asylum that is ‘clearly without foundation’ have not been fully harmonised at Community level. Both phenomena are being discussed in association with the soft law approach in the Council resolution adopted in 1992 on applications for asylum that are clearly without foundation. Member States’ actions are guided in this area, however, by the rules laid down by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in 1979 on the procedures and bases for determining refugee status and, in particular, the interpretation of Article 1, section A, paragraph 2 of the 1951 Convention.

This year in March the Commission communicated to the Council and the European Parliament its preparatory act on commonly agreed requirements for asylum-seeking procedures, which set forth ideas on future Community acts on what is meant by ‘clearly without foundation’ and ‘safe country of origin’. The Council is expecting to receive an official proposal on these matters in the coming months.

The European Central Bank is not providing the Members of the European Parliament with information about the salaries of its Executive Board members. It is clear that the statement made to Parliament by Wim Duisenberg, President of the ECB, that his salary is 40% higher than the highest salary on the EU's pay scale, is not true. Does the Council have any information about the salaries of the ECB Executive Board members, and if so, how much are they paid?

The Council is not informed on the exact figure for the salaries of the ECB Executive Board members.

Under Article 11(3) of the protocol on the basic instrument for the European Central Bank and on the ECB system the terms and conditions of service of the Executive Board members, and especially their pay, are agreed in a contract made with the ECB, which the ECB Council endorses.

Bearing in mind that women are virtually excluded from the decision-making fora in which choices are made between war and peace, and recognising the particular interest which the Finnish Presidency may have in fostering peaceful and progressive measures, would it be prepared to draw up, in whatever form it considers appropriate, a recommendation on the need to include women in the fora responsible for taking decisions on armed conflicts and their prevention? In that way, women's traditionally anti-war culture could contribute to humanity's peaceful progress.

The Council is fully aware of the problem concerning the participation of women in the peace process (or their exclusion from it). In fact “Women and Armed Conflicts” is one of the concerns of the Beijing Action Platform adopted in 1995. Point 135 of the Beijing Action Platform recognises that “in a world of continuing instability and violence, the implementation of cooperative approaches to peace and security is urgently needed. The equal access and full participation of women in power structures and their full involvement in all efforts for the prevention and resolution of conflicts are essential for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security. Although women have begun to play an important role in conflict resolution, peace-keeping and defence and foreign affairs mechanisms, they are still underrepresented in decision-making positions. If women are to play an equal part in securing and maintaining peace, they must be empowered politically and economically and represented adequately at all levels of decision making.”

All Members of the United Nations are committed to the following: firstly, to promote equal opportunities and the equal involvement of women so that they are included in all fora and can participate in peace action at all levels and secondly, to take account of considerations of gender equality in the resolution of conflicts, armed or otherwise, and foreign occupation, and ensure that issues of gender equality can be discussed in various bodies.

Ministers who are responsible for equal opportunities raised the subject when they informally convened in Berlin on 14 and 15 June 1999. The Ministers stressed that the UNHCR’s guidelines on the protection of refugee women and the document drafted by the UN’s Interorganisational Standing Committee on mainstreaming gender in the humanitarian response to emergencies, should be applied and implemented forthwith, so that women’s needs might be taken into consideration in crisis situations and so that considerations of gender equality might be taken account of in all humanitarian action concerned with peace and reconstruction.

The Beijing plus five follow-up meeting, to be held next year, will be a good opportunity to evaluate progress and continue the work as appropriate.

The preparatory meeting by the ECE to review the implementation of the Peking action programme in 2000 (Geneva 19 –21 January 2000) will also be an opportunity for the Member States of the EU to be involved at European level in drafting recommendations regarding this issue for the Beijing plus five steering committee to consider. The question of women in military situations and conflicts is one of the subjects to be discussed at the ECE meeting. The Finnish Presidency is at present putting the final touches to the EU’s provisional comments on the final outcome of the meeting. The EU comments emphasise, among other things, the importance of strengthening the status of women as active participants in the prevention of conflicts, peacekeeping and constructive work.

Declaration 38 attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam recognises the important contribution made by voluntary service activities to developing social solidarity and a commitment is given to the encouragement of the European dimension of voluntary organisations, with particular emphasis on the exchange of information and experiences as well as the participation of the young and the elderly in voluntary work.

In the light of the next IGC and as real and positive way of marking the new millennium and the contribution of voluntary workers to society throughout the EU, will the Council agree to converting this Declaration, appropriately amended, into the provisions of the next Treaty?

On 18 November last, the European Parliament adopted a resolution which was addressed to the Commission, the Council and the Member States, on the 10th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and, not for the first time, specifically called on the Member States, at the next IGC, to adopt a legal basis for the promotion and protection of the rights of the child as defined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In the light of the above resolution will the Council state what steps it is now taking to ensure that a clear legal basis is added to the Treaty and to ensure that the EU, like the Member States, is meeting international commitments made when ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Non-governmental organisations play a key role in civil society and if the concept of a ‘Social Europe’ is to have any real meaning to our 350 million citizens these organisations must have a legal status within the Treaty. In light of the upcoming Intergovernmental Conference due to start early in 2000, does the Council accept that they can no longer delay in legally enshrining in the Treaty the inclusion of a reference to the right of social and civil voluntary organisations to be consulted in the development of European legislation through what is known as the ‘civil dialogue’?

President, I should like to give a joint answer to the questions by James Fitzsimons, Pat Gallagher and Richard Howitt, all of which refer to the revision of the Treaties.

President, I should first of all like to stress in reply to the questions by James Fitzsimons and Richard Howitt that the Council is fully aware of the importance both of the voluntary services and of certain NGOs in 'civil society'.

In this connection there is a need to stress the importance of voluntary work in the development of social solidarity in the European Union and in meeting those needs which cannot be satisfactorily met by any other means. Because the Treaty of Amsterdam established the importance of voluntary work in our society, the Council has striven by various means to take this special form of solidarity into account and to promote it within Europe, and proposes to give it a great deal of attention in the future as well. In this connection it is worth noting that the increased importance of many NGOs at a social level in Europe is equally essential.

As regards the forthcoming IGC, the Council can only urge the Honourable Members to study the conclusions of the Helsinki European Council, paragraph 16 of which deals with the topics for discussion at the Conference which will begin in February 2000. At this stage the agenda for the Conference includes the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting in the Council, as well as related issues. The conclusions state that the next Presidency may propose additional issues to be included on the agenda of the Conference. According to its terms of reference, the Conference is to examine how the matter raised by the Honourable Member can be taken into account in the work of the Conference.

It may also be noted that the conclusions of the Helsinki European Council state that the European Parliament is closely involved and will take part in the work of the Conference. According to paragraph 18 of the conclusions, meetings of the preparatory Group for the Conference may be attended by two observers from the European Parliament. In addition, meetings at ministerial level will be preceded by an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament; similarly meetings at the level of Heads of State or Government dealing with the IGC will be preceded by an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament.

The Council also draws the Honourable Member's attention to the decision taken at the Tampere European Council (15-16 October 1999) that a body specially set up to deal with this matter, comprising representatives of the European Parliament, the Member States' governments, national parliaments and the Commission, be instructed to draw up a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. The first meeting of this body will be held on 17 December and the Members of the European Parliament which is represented on it, will be regularly informed of the progress of negotiations.

In this forum, the European Parliament may bring up the efforts of individual people and organisations working in this area in the civil society to which I have referred.

Regarding the question by Pat Gallagher, the Council assures the Honourable Member that it fully supports the objectives of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and considers it essential to take all possible steps to safeguard children's rights by guaranteeing them appropriate protection against shameful forms of exploitation such as sexual abuse and forced labour, which should no longer occur in our day and age.

The Council also considers that civil society must guarantee without exception to all children the opportunity for education, for today's children are tomorrow's citizens.

I should like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the Council does not take part in its capacity as a European Union body in the IGC, which is shortly to be convened to examine ways and means to review the Treaty.

That being so, I feel sure you will understand that the Council cannot reply in more detail to this question.

The Tampere Council conclusions have made it clear that the protection of victims of crime is a priority for the future and has recommended that ‘national programmes should be set up to finance measures, public and non-governmental, for assistance to and protection of victims’.

Taking into account the 1983 Council of Europe Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, does the EU Council consider that compensation of EU nationals who fall victim to violent crimes while in another EU Member State should be subject to special measures at EU level, a situation which was not covered in the 1983 Convention and has the Council any time-scale in mind for ensuring the establishment of national programmes for the protection of victims of crime and, finally, will such programmes, which should envisage a special role for NGOs, be considered as an essential element in the enlargement process?

As the Honourable Member reminds us in his question, the European Council held on 15 and 16 October 1999 in Tampere considered, on the basis of a communication from the Commission, that ‘minimum standards should be drawn up on the protection of the victims of crime, in particular on victims' access to justice and on their rights to compensation for damages, including legal costs. In addition, national programmes should be set up to finance measures, public and non-governmental, for assistance to and protection of victims’.

The Commission communication referred to in the question was forwarded to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee.

The Honourable Member may note that in that communication, inter alia, the Member States were called upon to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes concluded on 24 November 1983, which has a more restricted scope.

The purpose of that Convention, which has to date been signed and ratified by eight European Union Member States, is to bind the parties to define in their legislation or administrative provisions a compensation system whereby compensation can be paid from public funds to those victims of violent crimes who have died or received serious physical injuries as a result of acts of violence.

The Commission is following up its communication and will shortly be presenting a table of results of the follow-up to the conclusions of the Tampere European Council. On the basis of the Commission communication the Member States are currently looking at the drafting of national programmes to assist and protect the victims of crime. However, the Council notes that it has not itself dealt with the proposals contained in the communication. All areas relating to justice and home affairs, including the status of victims, will be taken into account in the enlargement process.

Can the Presidency give a guarantee that full consideration will be given to the particular problems that the elderly and the visually impaired are likely to experience with the changeover to euro notes and coins? What provisions will be put in place and what funds made available to adequately inform these vulnerable groups and assist them with the transition?

In a sitting of the ECOFIN Council on 8 November, the Member States agreed that, in order to familiarise the public with the new coins and to make the period of transition to the euro easier for people, and especially vulnerable groups, a limited number of euro coins could be issued, not, however, before halfway through December 2001. Furthermore, the technical specifications in Council Regulation (EC) No 975/98 on euro coins of 3 May 1998 take account of the fact that these coins must be easily recognisable by means of appropriate visual and tactile features. These technical specifications have been discussed at length with consumer groups and the European Blind Union.

The Council is confident that the ECB, which has sole right to give authorisation for the circulation of euro notes, will try in the same way to ensure flexibility in the transition to the use of euro notes, especially by manufacturing easily recognisable notes.

The Member States participating in the single currency will, for their part, do what they can to ensure that most money transactions will be in euros by mid-January, 2002, and the dual use of both the old money and the new can be restricted to a period of between four and eight weeks.

A survey⁽¹⁾ carried out on behalf of the Commission has estimated that the audiovisual market's overall income could increase by 70% by 2005.

What assurances will the Council give that countries such as Ireland and, in particular, rural Ireland, will secure their fair share of this anticipated substantial increase in the audiovisual market, including cinematographic works?

There has been no discussion in the Council on the matter referred to by the Honourable Member. In addition it may be useful to recall in this connection that both audiovisual and all other production comes under the heading of the internal market and that access to this area should be seen in that context.

Apart from that, no particular proposals have been made to the Council as a result of the survey to which the Honourable Member refers.

That being so, the Council cannot give any answer to the Member's question. He might perhaps put his question to the Commission, which has all the information on this matter and which can reply taking account of all the circumstances relating to the problem which is the subject of the Honourable Member's concern.

At the General Affairs Council of 15 November 1999, the Council reiterated the importance of the EU initiative on the question of the death penalty and its overall policy on universal abolition but referred also to the need to maintain EU unity in the continuing discussions in New York.

Will the Council outline the present situation regarding this initiative and will it keep the house informed about developments with regard to this initiative on a regular basis?

The conclusions adopted in the General Affairs Council on 15 November stated that the Council had noted the current situation relating to the discussion of the initiative on the death penalty, as proposed by the EU in the UN General Assembly (motion for a resolution UNGA 54). It once again drew attention to the importance the initiative had as part of the EU’s overall policy on the abolition of the death penalty, and considered it was important to maintain EU unity in the forthcoming talks in New York.

After the EU successfully moved for a resolution on the abolition of the death penalty in the 55th sitting of the UN Human Rights Commission, it also decided for the first time to move for a draft resolution in the Third Committee of the 54th General Assembly of the UN. Many countries strongly opposed the initiative, however. The EU and the other countries that supported the initiative had no other choice than to postpone the introduction of the draft resolution on the death penalty, until more favourable circumstances offered themselves. If the initiative were to be discussed now there would be many changes to the text of the draft, as proposed by those counties that are in favour of keeping the death penalty. One of these proposed changes was particularly harmful to the content of the resolution and the whole initiative itself, as it set out to include in the initiative the principle of sovereignty, and the regard for human rights would be subordinate to a ban on interfering in the internal affairs of the country.

The Council is firmly committed to its continued policy with regard to capital punishment and looking into bilateral and multilateral means of strengthening the international support for the its world-wide abolition.

Reports coming out of Colombia are giving increasing cause for concern. Since 10 November tens of thousands of rural workers and native Indians have been demonstrating peacefully in Cauca, in the south of the country, and have been calling on the Colombian Government to honour the commitments it entered into with them following an earlier demonstration. The police sent in in response used armed force on 19 November, injuring several demonstrators.

Will the Union be playing a more active role in resolving the various forms of social unrest which have gripped the country for decades?

President Pastrana has asked the European Union to finance the 'Colombia Plan' drawn up by his government. Will the Union see to it that such assistance is not approved until peace agreements have been concluded, thus ensuring that EU funds serve to resolve rather than exacerbate the conflict? How will the European Union ensure that any such assistance is tied to Colombia's acceptance of the recommendations made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, given that human rights have become a crucial aspect of EU cooperation? Will it ensure that any aid plan for Colombia is tied to specific commitments to make the necessary moves towards greater democracy, clamp down on impunity, disband paramilitary groups and introduce social reform, including agricultural reform, compliance with these commitments being subject to regular checks, conducted with the help of European and Colombian NGOs if possible?

What role will be assigned to the European Parliament in this process?

The Council believes, as the Honourable Member does, that the conflict that Columbia has undergone for decades is both difficult and complex. The Union has expressed its satisfaction with the announcement that peace talks would continue between the Colombian Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). This announcement is evidence of the clear and courageous commitment of the Colombian Government, whose democratic legitimacy is indubitable, to the peace process. The Union has reconfirmed its attention to support as best it can, and by using appropriate means, attempts at a peace agreement based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It also called on all parties involved in the conflict to work in cooperation, which is vital if lasting peace is to be achieved.

On his visit to the European Parliament on 25 October President Pastrana also met the Secretary-General, CFSP High Representative Javier Solana, who reconfirmed to him the Union’s position on Colombia. Until now, the Union has not received any special request to fund concrete projects under the ‘Colombia Plan’.

At this stage, the Union does not consider it desirable that EU aid should not be granted until peace agreements have been made between the legitimate government and armed groups in Colombia. As with everywhere else in the world, the Union, however, is still anxious that the aid it grants will promote a respect for human rights, which is the key factor in cooperation with third countries.

The Union is still following events in Colombia closely, both at the diplomatic level and through its contact with civil society and the European NGOs whose work is influenced by the situation in Colombia.

Finally, the Council would like to state that it is not its task to take a position on the possible role of the European Parliament in this connection, as it is an independent institution, whose competence in the area of foreign policy is precisely defined in the Treaty.

What view does the Council take of the development of cross-border cooperation with non-EU countries in European regions, for example with Karelia or with the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the border areas of the EU?

The Council supports cross-border cooperation. The importance of this kind of cooperation has grown even more in recent years in relations between the newly independent States, the European Union and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as there is a common border with the newly independent States now that Finland is in the Union, the Baltic region is becoming ever more important as the Union enlarges, and the western borders of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are developing in their preparations for accession.

The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the Communities, their Member States and the newly independent countries specifies the conditions for gradual convergence within the framework of broader European cooperation.

In the European Union’s joint Russian strategy, which was decided in the European Council in Cologne on 4 June 1999, it was stated that the European Union would support strengthened cross-border and regional cooperation and would draft a plan for appropriate tools within the EC and the Member States to try to enhance the participation of particularly important regions of Russia, as far as the EU is concerned, in EU programmes.

In addition, there is provision in the TACIS programme for support for action to promote cooperation among the Member States, the regions and the border areas. Special attention is to be paid to border crossing arrangements between the newly independent states and the Union, and the newly independent states and Central Europe, as well as measures for the border between Finland and Russia to compare with those brought in in the relevant area between the Union and the PHARE countries.

It can be said, especially with regard to Karelia, that the Finnish areas of North Ostrobothnia, Kainuu, North Karelia and the Karelian Republic within the Russian Federation have decided to establish an area of cooperation, the Karelian EU Border Area. The Finnish regional authorities adopted the memorandum in September 1999, and the Karelian Republic authorities adopted it just recently. A main aim of the Karelian EU Border Area is to make cross-border cooperation more effective by means of a development programme and a common decision-making procedure. The programme is to be implemented with Interreg and TACIS appropriations and national funds. This is the first project on the Russian/Finnish border to embrace non-EU territory.

Furthermore, special attention is being paid to cooperation between the newly independent States and the Union and the newly independent States and Central Europe in terms of large geographical areas.

Cross-border cooperation is being implemented within the framework of the TACIS programme, so as to achieve the greatest possible synergy with that part of the Community programme on interregional cooperation (Interreg) that deals with cross-border cooperation, and the PHARE programme for cross-border cooperation. I might remind everyone, in this connection, that the Commission delivered a communication on this subject of cross-border cooperation to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Committee of the Regions, in May 1997.

With regard to cross-border cooperation within the framework of the PHARE programme, I would remind everyone that cooperation involves structural action and from now on not only the border areas between the EU and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe but also the border areas between these various countries themselves.

The Turkish Supreme Court recently upheld the death sentence handed down on the Kurdish leader Abdullah Öçalan. Will the Council say whether, in view of the planned upgrading of relations between the EU and Turkey at the Summit meeting in Helsinki, it intends to make the non-implementation of the death sentence on Abdullah Öçalan and the definitive abolition of the death penalty in Turkey essential preconditions for the designation of Turkey as an EU applicant country?

The Council has noted the decision by the Turkish Appeal Court on 15 November not to carry out the death penalty handed down on 29 June 1999 to Abdullah Öçalan by the State Security Court in Ankara.

The Presidency of the European Union has repeatedly conveyed, and will continue to convey to the Turkish authorities the position the Union has unanimously taken regarding its opposition to the death penalty as a question of principle, irrespective of the defendant or the crime. At the same time, the Council has always clearly expressed its condemnation of all forms of terrorism.

The Council would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that it is at the discretion of the Turkish Parliament whether or not the death sentence passed by the Turkish court should be upheld. The Council continues to express its hope that Turkey will continue with the practice it has been adopting over the last 15 years, and not carry out the death sentence. The European Council at Helsinki granted Turkey EU candidate status. On the basis of the Helsinki conclusions, it is very important to point out that the non-application of the death penalty is a part of the common values of the European Union, and thus also a part of Union law.

The Council also understands that the Turkish Government intends to await the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which asked Turkey on 30 November 1999 to “take all necessary action to ensure that the death sentence is not implemented, so that the court can make effective progress in its examination of the correct conditions and justification for considering the plaintiff’s appeal.”

On 7 May NATO missiles struck the Chinese Embassy building in Belgrade, causing very substantial material damage and the death of three journalists. According to information that has just been published and statements by top military officials in NATO and the Director of the CIA, this was not an accident, as originally announced, but a premeditated strike, since the American secret services were fully aware that the building in question housed the Chinese Embassy.

What is the Council's view of these revelations, given that the EU fully backed the campaign against Yugoslavia, and most Member States were directly involved in military operations? Does it agree that an act of this kind constitutes an unprovoked attack on an independent state, a serious threat to world peace and a flagrant violation of the principles of international law?

As I think the Honourable Member will remember, the General Affairs Council, in their sitting in Brussels on 17 May 1999, in a public statement, added their expressions of regret to those of the UN Security Council regarding the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. We also have to remember that the incident the Honourable Member mentions was the consequence of an air strike by NATO and that the North Atlantic Council, and not the EU, is responsible for military action by NATO. It is also clear that the EU Member States that were involved in military action in the Yugoslav Federal Republic were acting as members of NATO.

According to NATO sources, during an American naval exercise in the Mediterranean in the 1970s a nuclear-powered American warship lost a nuclear warhead in the Libyan Sea off the coast of Crete. There are good reasons to suspect that this is not the only one which has been lost and is now lying at the bottom of the Mediterranean.

In view of the obvious terrible threat posed by this incident for life in the Mediterranean, does the Council intend to look into this matter and will it say what measures it intends to take to ensure that these 'lost' nuclear weapons in the Mediterranean are located and gathered up?

The Council has not received the Honourable Member’s specific question nor his more general one for tabling. The Council until now has never considered any action to be taken regarding this issue.

The Council Presidency's provisional agenda for the 7 December 1999 Internal Market Council predicts that it will adopt a Political Agreement on the SLIM Directive on Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications (ref: 97/0345(COD)).

Can the President of Council give this House an account of the manner in which the Internal Market Council took account of the Parliament's First Reading Amendments in reaching this Political Agreement? In particular, what were Council's reasons for accepting or rejecting Parliament's Amendments Nos 3, 13 and 17 to the Commission's proposal?

Is the President of Council satisfied that Council will discharge its obligation under Article 152 of the EU Treaty to ensure that its common position foresees a high level of health protection for EU citizens?

On 7 December 1999, the Internal Market Council reached political consensus on a common position on the SLIM Directive on Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications.

A proper common position is to be adopted in a future Council, possibly in February 2000, when legally appointed linguists have finalised the text. After that the text and the Council’s explanatory statements will be given to the European Parliament in compliance with the procedures laid down in the Treaty.

The Presidency, unfortunately, cannot give the Honourable Member the information he requests before the common position is officially adopted. The Presidency can, however, assure him that the Council has this time taken proper account of the European Parliament’s amendments.

The European Union recognises the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In Article 4 of Common Position 1999/318/CFSP adopted on 10.05.99, the European Council decided to impose a ban on commercial and private flights through the airspace of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, Article 2 of Common Position 1999/604/CFSP, which amends Common Position 1999/318/CFSP, lifts this flight ban in respect of Kosovo, Northern Metohija and Montenegro.

Does this selective lifting of the ban cast doubt on the national sovereign rights of Yugoslavia in its own national airspace? Does the discriminatory treatment of different regions in Federal territory imply that the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia and its federal system is being questioned? Is this Council decision in keeping with the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (Article1)?

The European Union does not call into question the national sovereign rights of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to its own national airspace. It has on many occasions declared its support for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s territorial integrity.

The EU would like to remind everyone that it is firmly committed to the establishment of a democratic government in all parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia within its present borders, and that it notes with satisfaction the democratic reforms that have been made in Montenegro. The Council thus decided to lift the ban in respect of Montenegro and in doing so is showing its support for the ongoing process of reform that the democratically elected government in Montenegro is involved in. In addition, the Council decided to lift the flight ban in respect of the province of Kosovo, for humanitarian reasons.

The improvement in relations between the EU and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will require decisive action aimed at democracy on the part of that country and total cooperation with the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia. Decisions on sanctions are to be taken on the basis of developments in the situation as they are achieved in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

With regard to the 1994 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, it has to be said that the EU is not a party to the agreement. The Council’s position is that the Member States, which adopted the common position and the Council’s regulation, took account of their obligations under the Convention.

What arrangements have been made between the High Representative for the CFSP and the Council to avoid duplication of effort and confusion to third parties with regard to their respective role?

The Secretary-General and High Representative assists the Council on issues relating to the CFSP, among other things by holding a political exchange of views with third parties. In this case, the provisions of the Treaty clearly lay down that the Secretary-General and High Representative asks on behalf of the Council at the request of the Member State holding the Presidency.

Moreover, on the basis of our past experience of working with the Secretary-General/High Representative, I can ensure the Honourable Member that regular - almost daily - meetings are held with the Secretary-General/High Representative, his staff and the representatives of the Presidency.

That being so there is no danger of confusion or duplication of work.

I understand that, at last week's Western European Union (WEU) Assembly in Luxembourg, a decision was taken by the 16 WEU Foreign and Defence Ministers to give the EU direct access to a number of the security organisation's assets, including its military staff.

Can the Commission confirm or deny that such a decision was taken?

Can the Commission also explain what other WEU assets will be directly accessible and, in particular, indicate whether the list includes nuclear weapons?

What are the consequences of such decisions for neutral EU Member States?

The Commission can of course confirm that the Western European Union (WEU) Luxembourg Ministerial on 22/23 November (NOT at WEU Assembly in Paris last week which is the Parliamentary body) decided to allow bodies of the Council of the EU direct access to the expertise of WEU operational structures including the Secretariat, Military Staff, Satellite Centre and Institute for Security Studies.

This means WEU and Satellite Centre analysis can be asked for by High Rep and Council on the same basis as the WEU Council.⁽¹⁾

In the Amsterdam Treaty the Union Member States committed themselves to working together on the so-called Petersberg tasks. These are tasks of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and crisis management, not of common defence.

In Cologne and just last week in Helsinki, the structures for coordination within the Union, and between the Union and the WEU were agreed. Since this is the legal framework for EU-WEU interaction. It is hoped and believed neutral members should have no difficulty with the decision. Indeed, it is the Council which decides whether it wishes to draw on WEU resources at all.

In view of recent developments in Croatia, how does the Commission think that the EU's future strategy towards that country will develop?

The Commission understands, like the Council, that these are very significant and difficult times for Croatia and for Croatians.

Croatia must adjust to a future without President Tudjman, who, as the leader who steered his country to independence, will always have an important place in Croatian history.

But when this immediate period of mourning is over, Croatia will need to face the future, and decide how best to move forward, to chart a course that will enable it to take its rightful place in the family of European democracies. And she will need all the support of her friends in the Union as she does so.

That is why the Commission hopes – that the forthcoming Parliamentary and Presidential elections, when they are held, will mark a turning point for Croatia.

It is vital that those elections should be genuinely free and fair, and seen to be so.

The Commission does not seek to interfere.

All that is asked, as friends of Croatia, is that there should be a level playing field in those elections – not just at the ballot box, but in other crucial areas like access to the media, especially television.

On that basis, the Commission hopes to be able to work closely with the new government. It will look to that government to live up to the standards of accountability and openness that is expected from aspirant members of the European Union. It shall match its cooperation to economic and political reform it carries out. It is hoped that if Croatia lives up to the commitments it has made, it could benefit before long from the Stabilisation and Association process.

In short, there is now an opportunity for a fresh start in relations between Croatia and the European Union. the Commission remains keen to establish and increasingly close relationship. It will look to Croatia in the coming months to show the same commitment.

What arrangements have been made between the High Representative for the CFSP and the Commission with a view to avoiding duplication of effort and confusion among third parties with regard to their respective roles?

The Commission has stressed from the outset its determination to establish the closest possible working relations with the High Representative. It has got off to a very good start. It is already getting into the habit of working closely alongside each other.

As the Policy Unit in the Council becomes fully operational arrangements are being made for close cooperation at working level.

The first joint trip was to Kosovo in October, underlining the commitment to the reconstruction effort in the Balkans.

The roles of the External Relations Commissioner and the High Representative for the Common and Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) are mutually reinforcing. The Treaty is clear in spelling out the High Representative's role in assisting the Presidency in the area of CFSP.

The Commission has a clear Treaty-based role and institutional responsibilities in the field of external relations, including common foreign and security policy. The Commission is fully associated with the work carried out in the field of CFSP and has an important responsibility for carrying out and executing agreed policy. The Commission recognises that this is a subject in which Honourable Members and others will continue to take a close interest.

But the Commission is pleased that thus far, this team effort is working well, and has every confidence that it will continue to do so.

It is widely recognised that the SCR has been a failed experiment which has not improved aid management and has reduced further the accountability of the Community's aid programme. Though the immense backlog of payments might have now been significantly reduced, the fact remains that the project cycle is split, and funding processes remain cumbersome and slow. One group of people designs projects, whilst another implements them. There is no common hierarchy or effective coordination mechanism, and there are increased tensions between the geographical desks and the SCR. When does the Commission propose to review the project cycle, and how does it intend effectively to remarry aid policy and design management so that the European Union can boast a coherent and coordinated development aid programme?

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for her timely question. It is pleased to announce to the House the creation of a Review Group within the Commission to work on ways of improving the management of the Union's external aid programmes in parallel with the wider reform initiative. Working under the close supervision of Relex Commissioners, the Review Group will aim significantly to improve the quality and timely delivery of projects while maintaining the highest standards of financial control and accountability. Composed of representatives of all the Commission Services involved with managing external assistance, the Review Group will also draw on the experience of other major international donors like the World Bank and the ERBD.

The first question the Review Group will address is the division of responsibilities for managing external aid, in particular within the project cycle. The President of the Commission highlighted the need to look carefully at this complex question when he announced the recent reorganisation of the Commission's services. It is hoped, on the basis of recommendations from the Review Group, Relex Commissioners will be able to take a decision on the way forward next month. It would be premature for me to opt for any particular solution today, before this work has been carried out.

More generally, it is believed the Honourable Member is overly harsh in her judgements about the achievements of the dedicated staff in the "Service Commun Relex" (SCR) since its creation in 1998. The SCR inherited a huge backlog of late payments and unfinished projects. The new division of responsibilities in the Commission services did not address the fundamental problems of severe staff shortages and excessively burdensome legal constraints. While the upheaval of a major restructuring has no doubt had a short-term impact, as it would in any organisation, concrete improvements are starting to be seen.

The backlog of late invoices was cleared during the summer of 1999. Now all valid invoices are paid within the normal 60-day period (provided budgetary resources are available). The rate of project commitments is also up on last year; A manual of harmonised procedures for external aid contracts was approved on 10 November 1999. This will reduce the number of different procedures from over forty to eight, thus considerably simplifying life for external contractors and the Commission administration;

A standard contract for subsidies has recently been agreed. This should also speed up internal procedures, because less time will be spent checking legal paperwork before projects can be approved;

Greater transparency has been achieved thanks to the highly successful SCR web-site, which provides details of tenders and other useful information for contractors. This site attracted a record number of over 275,000 hits in September 1999.

Plainly, there is still much more that can and must be done. Achieving further concrete improvements in the delivery of external assistance is one of the Commission's top priorities.

The Commission has a huge responsibility to the beneficiary countries and to Union taxpayers to maximise the effectiveness of the very considerable resources managed. That is the only way a real difference to economic prosperity, democracy, human rights and the rule of law throughout the world can be made. Rapid and well-targeted delivery of high-quality assistance is a precondition if we are to be an effective player in world affairs. The Review Group announced today should make a significant contribution to achieving this aim.

It is rumoured that the Commission considers that the reduced rates at which employers' contributions are payable by enterprises in Norrland in Sweden violate EU law. This is particularly the case where this concession is combined with State transport aid.

At present, manufacturers in northern Sweden are granted rebates of up to 8% on employers' contributions. The amount of the rebate is assessed by enterprises and authorities in Norrland.

Does the Commission regard these rebates as contrary to the principles of the internal market? Does it intend to take any measures against the rebates, and if so, why?

On 22 October 1999, Sweden notified a new regional aid map for the period 2000-2006 and two regional aid schemes. The three notifications are now being examined by the Commission in accordance with the normal State aid procedures.

The Commission recognises the specific problems of sparsely populated regions, such as North Sweden. It agrees that companies in those regions face particular handicaps due to the long distances to their markets. The "Guidelines on national regional aid" therefore make special provision for such regions.

First, the Guidelines contain a number of provisions to ensure that Member States can include their low population regions in the assisted area maps under Article 87(3)(c)(ex-Article 92) of the EC Treaty, if they so desire.

Secondly, under the Guidelines, the Commission may authorise higher aid intensity ceilings in low population density regions.

Thirdly, the Guidelines provide that Member States may grant transport aid to compensate for the additional transport costs incurred by companies located in low populated density regions. At the same time, though, the Guidelines also specify that the aid may serve only to compensate for the additional cost of transport of goods and that there should never be "over-compensation" of the additional transport costs.

In September 1999, the Commission already authorised a transport aid scheme for the North of Sweden, under which Sweden will provide direct compensation for the additional transport costs incurred by companies located in that region.

On 22 October 1999, Sweden notified the reduced social contributions aid scheme for North Sweden. This scheme reduces the employers' social contributions in North Sweden. Sweden justifies the reduction in the social contributions as a compensation for the additional "distance related costs" of the companies concerned.

The Commission is now examining whether this second transport aid scheme is justified. In this context it has asked Sweden to demonstrate that the reduction of the employers' social contributions does not over-compensate the additional transport costs incurred by the companies concerned. The Commission is awaiting a reply to this question from the Swedish authorities.

Population density in northern Sweden and Finland is low. In the northern part of Sweden there are approximately 3.4 inhabitants per square kilometre. Firms operating in these sparsely populated regions and on the export market have to transport their products long distances, considerably further than firms located in the vicinity of large concentrations of population and markets in big cities. Regional aid in the form of lower social security contributions and transport subsidies is, therefore, an important factor in offsetting the competitive disadvantages of firms operating in such sparsely populated areas.

Sweden and the Commission are currently negotiating the conditions governing regional aid in Sweden. Why will the Commission not enable such aid to be used in Sweden so that firms can compete on equal terms?

On 22 October 1999, Sweden notified a new regional aid map for the period 2000-2006 and two regional aid schemes. The three notifications are now being examined by the Commission in accordance with the normal State aid procedures.

The Commission recognises the specific problems of sparsely populated regions, such as North Sweden. It agrees that companies in those regions face particular handicaps due to the long distances to their markets. The "Guidelines on national regional aid" therefore make special provision for such regions.

First, the Guidelines contain a number of provisions to ensure that Member States can include their low population regions in the assisted area maps under Article 87(3)(c)(ex-Article 92) of the EC Treaty, if they so desire.

Secondly, under the Guidelines, the Commission may authorise higher aid intensity ceilings in low population density regions.

Thirdly, the Guidelines provide that Member States may grant transport aid to compensate for the additional transport costs incurred by companies located in low populated density regions. At the same time, though, the Guidelines also specify that the aid may serve only to compensate for the additional cost of transport of goods and that there should never be "over-compensation" of the additional transport costs.

In September 1999, the Commission already authorised a transport aid scheme for the North of Sweden, under which Sweden will provide direct compensation for the additional transport costs incurred by companies located in that region.

On 22 October 1999, Sweden notified the reduced social contributions aid scheme for North Sweden. This scheme reduces the employers' social contributions in North Sweden. Sweden justifies the reduction in the social contributions as a compensation for the additional "distance related costs" of the companies concerned.

The Commission is now examining whether this second transport aid scheme is justified. In this context it has asked Sweden to demonstrate that the reduction of the employers' social contributions does not over-compensate the additional transport costs incurred by the companies concerned. The Commission is awaiting a reply to this question from the Swedish authorities.

On 5 November 1999, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson released his 'findings of fact' in the Microsoft case. As is well known, the case is about using market power and whether it harms innovation, consumers and other companies. The conclusion of the judge was that these factual circumstances have occurred. Although the European legal situation is different, there might be lessons to be learnt from this case. Has the Commission analysed the implications of these findings for the implementation of European competition law? What action will the Commission take to ensure that Microsoft is not hampering competition in Europe? Has any study been undertaken into the market position of Microsoft in Europe?

On 5 November 1999, Judge Jackson released his statements of the facts in the case brought by the American Justice Department against Microsoft. This document is still not a final verdict but simply establishes the facts relating to the dominant position held by Microsoft in the PC operating systems market and its practices vis-à-vis some of its competitors.

It is not possible to anticipate a final decision in the American case since we still do not have a final verdict. Nevertheless, it is clear that Microsoft is present throughout the world and that its products are widely distributed within the Community. If the American Justice Department orders remedial action, this will affect the behaviour and commercial policy of Microsoft and will very probably have repercussions for the European markets. The Commission is therefore particularly concerned to observe and monitor the repercussions in Europe of any American judicial decisions.

The Commission and the American competition authorities have been cooperating for several years with regard to competition issues within the framework of the 1991 cooperation agreement. Therefore, the Commission has been kept informed by the American authorities about the proceedings against Microsoft by the American Justice Department concerning Internet navigation software. This case does not, however, prevent the Commission from being able to intervene itself where necessary.

With regard to the actions undertaken by the Commission against Microsoft since the early 90s, it has been active in several cases. These cases include both complaints from third parties and proceedings initiated by the Commission itself. Microsoft has modified its behaviour in several instances in order to comply with European competition rules. In certain cases, Microsoft has itself settled its dispute with the complainant in order to avoid possible action against it by the Commission.

Of course, the Commission is very concerned to prevent any anti-competitive practices in Europe. To this end the Commission is continuing with other cases involving Microsoft, in particular two complaints made against it by some of its competitors and which concern areas not covered by the current proceedings in the United States. In this respect, the Commission wishes to point out that the proceedings, such as those being brought by the American justice system, should establish, on the one hand, Microsoft’s dominant position, but also, on the other hand, the abuse of that dominant position, in accordance with the provisions of Article 82 (ex-Article 86) of the EC Treaty.

Does the Commission believe that it is appropriate that Commissioner de Palacio should have been involved in its decision on the Spanish electricity industry's costs of transition to competition (CTC)?

Does President Prodi know that Commissioner de Palacio, as a Spanish Government minister, was involved in the decision to present the electricity companies with ESP 1.3 billion to cover the costs of transition to competition (CTC)?

Does he believe, therefore, that she should not be involved in the proceedings which have been opened against the Spanish Government in respect of state aids?

One of the undertakings the Commissioners gave to President Prodi was that within the Commission, they would refrain from defending national interests and the actions of their respective governments.

Has Commissioner de Palacio fulfilled that undertaking with regard to the question of public subsidies for the Spanish electricity industry's CTCs?

What role has Commissioner de Palacio played in the proceedings in respect of state aids to cover Spanish electricity companies' costs of transition to competition (CTC)?

With regard to the proceedings concerning the State aids granted to Spanish electricity companies to cover the costs of transition to competition (CTC) does the Commission intend to take account of Commissioner de Palacio's views?

Is the Commission taking into account the fact that Mrs de Palacio was a member of the Spanish Government which took the State aids decision in the first place?

The five questions put by the Honourable Members basically ask whether Mrs de Palacio should abstain from the decision which the Commission will have to make on the issue of the costs of the transition to competition in the Spanish electricity sector, bearing in mind that she was a member of the Spanish Government at the time when the law establishing those costs was adopted. In this respect, the Honourable Members should refer to the Commission’s answer to written questions E-1761/99 and P-1889/99, which dealt with the same subject and to which the Commission has nothing to add.

According to telephone institutions in Finland, EU officials are prohibiting local telephone associations and cooperatives from granting owners' price reductions to their members. The idea behind the cooperative movement is that users benefit from the firms' activities mainly by making use of them and not by investing capital. Does the Commission consider that the only form of economic activity which may be carried on in the EU is that of the limited company?

The Commission applies the same approach to all commercial organisations which are in dominant positions, without regard to the legal status under which they are incorporated. The Commission has already indicated that in its reply to written question E-0836/98 and, subsequently, in its reply to oral question H 515/98 given on 16 June 1998. The competition concerns regarding certain Finnish local telephone cooperatives do not relate to their legal status but to the fact that the rebates granted by these cooperatives could constitute abuses of dominant positions under EC competition law. As already mentioned in the above replies, rebates combined with personal shares in cooperatives which aim or have as effect to bind the customer to use only this cooperative can – in line with the case law of the Court of Justice – be considered as an abuse of a dominant position, especially when leading to price discrimination. Such rebates obviously discourage these subscribers to switch to competitors who cannot use rebates basing on the return on investments made in the past when sheltered by monopoly rights, as the relevant cooperatives.

Already in 1997 – in the framework of the preparation of the third report on the implementation of the Community Telecommunications Directives – the Commission raised the possible incompatibility with the Treaty competition rules of such rebates by local telecommunications operators, and in particular by the Helsinki Telephone Company.

The initiatives taken by the company are suitable to remedy the concerns mentioned. The Commission decided therefore to close the administrative procedure opened regarding this possible infringement to the Treaty rules.

It should in this regard be emphasised that Community competition rules only prohibit abuses of a dominant position on a substantial part of the common market. The Commission therefore does not intend to investigate the rebate practices of smaller local telephony operators which do not have a dominant position on a substantial part of the common market. This matter must be assessed under national competition law.

Does the Commissioner with special responsibility for competition policy accept that, if there is no agreement on the new state aid (assisted area status) map between the Commission and the UK, before 31 December 1999, an extension should be granted for the previous eligible areas until 31 March 2000? If not, how would the Commission explain its failure to act to local authorities seeking to boost investment in The Fens, Great Yarmouth, Harwich and Clacton who risk losing important opportunities to tackle unemployment and deprivation in their areas?

The Commission cannot accept to extend the validity of the current regional aid map for the United Kingdom until 31 March 2000 in case that the new map has not been approved before 31 December 1999.

By letter dated 24 February 1998, the Commission proposed on the basis of Article 88(1) (ex-Article 93) of the EC Treaty to the Member States to limit the duration of the existing regional aid maps to the 31 December 1999. This was accepted by the United Kingdom and by all the other Member States. The Commission further asked Member States in the same letter to submit their proposal for a new regional aid map by 31 March 1999. This delay was set in order to allow for the timely approval of regional aid maps before the end of the year.

Member States have been reminded several times of the need for timely notifications and of the requirements established by state aid rules to be respected by the new regional aid maps.

The United Kingdom notified its proposal for the future map by letter dated 15 July 1999. Replies to the Commission's requests for additional information were sent last time in October 1999. Additional information was also provided at several meetings with the British authorities, of which the last was held on 25 November.

The Commission regrets that due to the delayed notification and to the incompleteness of the notification, it will not be in a position to approve the United Kingdom map by the end of 1999.

The Commission is currently assessing additional information on several crucial points which it has received on 3 December 1999.

The Commission reminded Member States at several occasions of the important consequences of such a situation, last time by letter dated 26 October 1999. Member States for which no new regional aid map will have been approved before 1.1.2000, will not be able to grant any regional aid from 1.1.2000 until the date on which a new map is approved by the Commission. Regional aid granted outside an approved regional aid map constitutes unlawful aid.

Since August 1999, Ankara University, in collaboration with the illegal Turkish Cypriot 'University of the Mediterranean' and an archaeologist from the German University of Tübingen, has been excavating the archaeological site of Salamina in occupied Cyprus.

The excavations are taking place in the Agora of ancient Salamina and in the vicinity of the early Christian Basilica, two sites which were excavated before the 1974 Turkish invasion by a French archaeological expedition from the University of Lyons.

In addition to being a flagrant violation of the International Hague Convention, these excavations are being carried out in cooperation with an illegal 'university' based in an occupied area of an independent Member State of the UN. Indeed, the illegal 'university' concerned received funding from the Commission in 1997 to set up a 'European information centre', in the words of the former Commissioner, Mr Hans van den Broek.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the illegal excavations in occupied Cyprus and what action it will take to stop the pillage of its cultural heritage and whether it continues to finance the illegal Turkish Cypriot 'university' from Community resources?

The Commission is not aware of any archaeological research in Salamina. The Commission must recall that since December 1997 it has no access to the north of the island.

It is the Commission's hope that the resumption of bi-communal talks under the auspices of the United Nations, to start on 3 December 1999, will allow for a better climate on the island and facilitate the Commission's role in informing both communities on Community accession.

The Commission was invited by the Council on the 6 March 1995 to inform the Turkish Cypriot community civil society on the advantages it stands to derive from Community accession.

It is true that a 'European Centre of Information" in the Eastern Mediterranean University in Famugusta was installed. The Commission provided books and brochures on the Community but there has been no financing for this University.

In March 1998, the European Investment Bank granted a loan of about ITL 60 billion to Gardaland S.p.A., for the purpose of enlarging the leisure park of the same name. The author of this question harbours doubts about the advisability of granting the loan to a company which has substantial assets and is located in a region which is flourishing economically and which is particularly valuable and very important in ecological terms. When it was asked about the nature of the investment planned by Gardaland, the Bank argued that it was unable to forward the relevant documents on the grounds of the confidential nature of relations between the Bank and its customers.

In view of the links between the ECOFIN Council and the EIB Board of Governors, could the Commission state whether it intends to take measures to make information relating to decisions by the EIB more transparent and accessible, particularly where such decisions have major repercussions on a region's development? Does it not also consider that the effectiveness of the EIB's activities needs to be improved by introducing financial accounting and management procedures which will take environmental costs fully into account?

The Commission refers to the answers given to previous Parliamentary written Questions (1522/99 and 2513/98) on the EIB's financing for the upgrading of Gardaland's facilities. In these answers, the reasons for advancing a loan as well as the expected benefits for the region's economy have been duly set out.

As regards transparency, the EIB is committed to an active public information policy, aimed at improving knowledge and understanding of its mission and activity in support of Community objectives. In March 1997, the Bank adopted the guidelines for its information policy and the rules on public access to documents, which were published in the Official Journal No. C 423/13 on 9/8/1997.

While extending and diversifying its information sources, the EIB takes into consideration its obligations as a bank to respect confidentiality and the legitimate interests of its owners, borrowers, lenders and other third parties. Therefore, documents which originate from outside the Bank cannot be disclosed by the EIB. The applicant may, however, be referred to the origin of the document or to any other source where the document may be available.

As regards financial accounting and procedures which take environmental costs into account, the EIB aims to achieve best environmental practice in so far as its role and responsibilities permit it. It must be stressed, however, that the promoter, Gardaland in this case, is responsible for compliance with the legal obligations and standards relating to the environment. Regulation and enforcement is performed by the competent authorities at Community and/or national level.

In all sectors, environmental investigations form an integral part of the work carried out by the Bank to assess whether a project qualifies for financing. On this basis, the Bank seeks indeed, as far as practicable, to internalise environmental costs and benefits in the economic valuation.

Finally, the Commission would like to point out that the EIB is an independent institution whose management operates under the authority and the guidelines given to it by the Member States as shareholders of the Bank.

What action is the Commission planning to take in order to put right the chaotic state of affairs prevailing within Europe's air traffic control systems?

Could the Commission propose that a single body be set up to control airspace throughout Europe?

At the invitation of the June 1999 Transport Council, the Commission approved a Communication on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management system it needs to remedy the chaotic situation of the European airspace. The questions raised by the Honourable Member of the Parliament are answered in this document which has recently been forwarded to the Council and the Parliament.

The Commissioner responsible for Economic and Monetary affairs, Mr Pedro Solbes Mira, recently stated that there was a significant divergence between the market parity of the drachma and its central parity vis-à-vis the euro and that discussions were being held on this parity.

Given that these remarks have triggered a debate concerning the parity of the drachma when Greece joins Economic and Monetary Union, will the Commission say what issues are involved here? Do some Commissioners take that view that the pre-determined central parity of the drachma vis-à-vis the euro (353 Drs./euro) might be reviewed on the basis of some new economic data?

The current exchange rate of the drachma against the euro is significantly above the central parity of the drachma in the new Exchange Rate Mechanism. This is a fact and this is what the Member of the Commission in charge of Economic affairs has stated.

There has been no discussions by the Commission of changing the central parity of the Greek drachma.

Any such decisions would have to be taken by a common procedure which is set out in the European Council Resolution on the exchange-rate mechanism in the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union. According to this Resolution:

"Decisions on central rates ... shall be taken by mutual agreement of the ministers of the euro-area Member States, the ECB and the ministers and central bank governors of the non-euro area Member States participating in the new mechanism, following a common procedure involving the European Commission, and after consultation of the Economic and Financial Committee" ... ".. All parties to the mutual agreement, including the ECB, will have the right to initiate a confidential procedure aimed at reconsidering central rates".

It follows that the Commission would not have the right to initiate such a procedure, but any such procedure would have to involve the Commission. There has not been any request for such a procedure in the case of the Greek drachma.

Will the Commission give its assurances that the Ombudsman will have access to all documents in its possession so that he is able to scrutinise them?

With regard to the Ombudsman’s scrutiny of and access to the documents in its possession, the Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it complies in every respect with the provisions of Article 3(2) of the Statute of the Ombudsman.

In accordance with this article, “The Community institutions and bodies shall be obliged to supply the Ombudsman with any information has requested of them and give him access to the files concerned. They may refuse only on duly substantiated grounds of secrecy. They shall give access to documents originating in a Member State and classed as secret by law or regulation only where that Member State has given its prior agreement. They shall give access to other documents originating in a Member State after having informed the Member State concerned.”

For the Honourable Member’s information, the Commission should point out that it has received 12 requests for access to documents from the Ombudsman, in some instances for cases in progress and that the Commission has always dealt with these requests in accordance with the terms of the above-mentioned article.

The Greek public has reacted with indignation to the unjustified and unethical decision by the international organisation, Médecins sans frontières, to expel its Greek section because of the position adopted by the Greek doctors during the Kosovo crisis.

The Greek section of the organisation comprises hundred of volunteers and is supported by 100 000 contributors in Greece; its missions have also received the backing of international and Greek public opinion.

This measure is a manipulation of the humanitarian movement, which must act without hindrance and offer aid to those in need irrespective of nationality. Will the Commission, therefore, say whether it is aware of this decision and whether it will intervene to persuade the International Office of the organisation to revise its position?

In its relations with its partners, the European Community’s Humanitarian Office rigorously respects their independence, which furthermore is laid down in the framework partnership agreement, which regulates their relations.

MSF is a non-governmental organisation, currently represented by 18 sections throughout the world. Amongst these sections, 6 are set up and recognised within MSF International as operational sections, i.e. MSF France, MSF Belgium, MSF Holland, MSF Spain, MSF Switzerland and MSF Luxembourg. The operational sections of MSF have signed the framework agreement with the ECHO.

The Greek section of Médecins sans frontières implements its own projects, which has caused a conflict within the association. This is why the International Council of MSF (composed of representatives of all the national sections) has decided to exclude the Greek section.

This is an internal issue for the organisation and concerns only them.

UK press reports indicate that the British Museum rents out one of the rooms housing the Parthenon Marbles for private functions, which have nothing to do with any of the normal functions of a museum. £7 000 is charged for receptions and £12 000 for banquets. This practice not only offends good taste and insults the dignity of art in general; it demonstrates a singular lack of sensitivity towards the historical issues surrounding the sculpture on display, with which the European Parliament is only too familiar.

Can the Commission intervene, whether directly or via the UK Government, to put a stop to a profit­making activity so utterly foreign to the European approach to the arts? Or, as usually happens when cultural matters are at stake, will subsidiarity be invoked as a reason for doing nothing?

Article 151 (ex-Article 128) of the EC Treaty grants the Commission the authority to support the cultural sector financially but not to lay down legislation for the protection of works of art or cultural heritage. Furthermore, no Community legislation is applicable in the case raised by the Honourable Member. Consequently, the Commission cannot intervene in a matter which, as in this case, lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Member States.

However, since the Commission is anxious for a rapid solution to this dispute between the United Kingdom and Greece, it is prepared to play the role of political mediator in this matter if the two Member States should request it.

The international conference organised by the British Museum on the cleaning of the Parthenon marbles from the Acropolis in Athens which were stolen and shipped to London produced new revelations on the damage inflicted on the marbles during attempts to 'clean them up'; research findings were also announced about the way in which they were acquired and transported from their original site, the Acropolis, following extensive and costly bribery of the Ottoman Turks who ruled Athens at the time. These revelations follow the increasingly alarming reports being published about these unique works of art, which are still being used as a backdrop for receptions and banquets in the building in which they are housed.

Will the Commission say whether after the latest revelations it intends to take steps to have the marbles returned to their original site, so that the Parthenon of the Acropolis of Athens – a unique part of man's cultural heritage – can be restored to its former glory, in line with the declaration signed by a majority of the Members of the European Parliament and the laws governing the return of stolen works of art?

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it is well aware of the declaration of the Parliament on this issue.

Article 151 (ex-Article 128) of the EC Treaty grants the Commission the authority to support the cultural sector financially but not to lay down legislation for the protection of works of art or cultural heritage. Furthermore, no Community legislation is applicable in the case raised by the Honourable Member. Consequently, the Commission cannot intervene in a matter which, as in this case, lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Member States.

However, since the Commission is anxious for a rapid solution to this dispute between the United Kingdom and Greece, it is prepared to play the role of political mediator in this matter if the two Member States should request it.

At your hearing, you said that the Commission and Parliament had parallel, identical views on the Copyright Directive. Can you then explain why the Commission did not incorporate in its amended proposal for a directive major elements of several amendments that Parliament had adopted by an overwhelming majority, specifically the part of Amendment No 33 which exempted temporary copies on networks only in so far as they related to authorised content? Parliament's amendments, and this one in particular, are essential for rightholders to create and disseminate their works in the information society.

The Honourable Member has asked the Commission to explain why, if it had parallel views on the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society as the Parliament, it did not incorporate in its modified proposal several elements of amendments which the Parliament adopted with an overwhelming majority. Reference is made in particular to part of Amendment No 33 which exempted certain temporary copies from the reproduction right only in so far as they related to authorised use.

The Commission shares Parliament’s concern to ensure meaningful harmonisation of copyright, which promotes innovation, investment and creativity Community-wide taking due account of all rights and interests involved. This has also been highlighted by the previous Commission on 9 February in the context of the first reading of the proposal. In this session, as well as subsequently in the amended proposal, the Commission explained in some detail why it could not accept all amendments, or at least not all elements.

This was in particular the case as regards the introduction in Article 5(1) of the condition that the main act of use of a work should be authorised by the rightsholders or permitted by law. The Commission shares the Parliament's concern to ensure that networks do not serve as vectors for the transmission of pirated content. However, it feels that adding this condition would not be the most appropriate or commensurate means of achieving that objective and, on the contrary, might jeopardise the proper functioning of the networks. It therefore opted to strengthen the conditions applicable to this exception by accepting other parts of the amendment of parliament on this provision. Together with Article 8, on sanctions and remedies, Article 5 as it stands ensures a satisfactory balance between the rights of rightsholders and the legitimate interests of other groups involved (telecommunication operators, users, consumers, and others).

The Community directive on the protection of the intellectual property rights of the authors of databases should have been transposed by the national parliaments of the Member States by 1 January 1998; however, four Member States (Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal) have so far failed to comply. The directive in question is particularly important for the further development of the Information Society, because in future the majority of network services will operate through databanks and the directive provides substantial protection for both electronic and traditional archives and also makes provision for protecting their authors and intellectual property rights in general.

Does the Commission intend to exercise the powers conferred on it by Article 169 of the EC Treaty to enforce compliance by those Member States which have so far failed to implement this directive?

The Commission is in a position to confirm that to date eleven of the Member States have implemented Directive 96/9/EC concerning the legal protection of databases⁽¹⁾.

In accordance with Article 16 thereof, Member States were required to notify implementing measures by 1 January 1998. Upon expiry of the implementation deadline the Commission had opened infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty against such Member States whose transpositions were still outstanding. In this context, the Commission has recently decided to refer Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal before the Court of Justice for failure to implement the Directive within specified time limits.

Would the Commission indicate whether its expected proposal for harmonising the European market in vitamin and mineral supplements will be based on the principle of nutritional need (using RDA as the reference point) rather than on an approach based on safety (where upper levels are established on the basis of sound science). If this is the case, would it provide a justification for such a stance, bearing in mind that the RDAs were established over 50 years ago as minimum (as opposed to optimum) guidelines, the number of scientific studies showing how simple nutrients at safe levels far above the RDA are beneficial to health, that a proposal based on the principle of nutritional need would severely limit consumer choice and that such a proposal would considerably increase the costs of such products?

Vitamin and mineral supplements have attracted considerable attention recently. Rules applicable to these products in Member States differ and create obstacles to intra Community trade. Harmonisation was therefore considered necessary. The Commission circulated a discussion paper back in 1997 that describes objectively the arguments for the different approaches on the various specific points of this subject including the principle on which to base the setting of maximum levels of vitamins and minerals in these products.

These products will be considered as foods and as such will dealt with under food legislation, unless classified as medicines. Any rules will have to ensure that these products, as all foods, are safe. At this stage though the Commission has not yet adopted its proposals. Therefore it can not enter into discussion on any specific points. It is intended to adopt such proposals early next year. These will be proposals for a Parliament and Council Directive. Therefore, there will be without doubt a full and interesting debate on the subject as a whole.

In connection with the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, what action is the Commission taking to promote the wider adoption of international law on human rights?

The Commission is not taking any action to promote international humanitarian law within the framework of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. It has neither the appropriate competences nor the resources to undertake such action.

The Honourable Member will note that the Commission is not a party to these Conventions. However the Commission does on occasion undertake humanitarian action through the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO).

When will the Commission publish the review of the Pigs Directive which was due in 1997, and by what date does it expect sow stalls and tethers to be phased out throughout the EU?

Council Directive 91/639/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs provides for the Commission to present a report on different aspects concerning the keeping of pigs in intensive rearing systems with particular regard to the welfare of sows reared in varying degrees of confinement and in groups.

The Commission asked the Scientific Committee on animal health and welfare to contribute to the abovementioned report elaborating an opinion on the welfare of pigs farmed in intensive conditions.

After the adoption of the opinion by the Scientific Committee, the Commission started to work on appropriate proposals to amend Directive 91/639/EEC in line with new scientific evidence.

The elaboration of a proposal in this field includes the consultation with different experts from Member States, from professional organisations and from the main animal welfare associations.

The Commission is also requesting from Member States information on the inspections carried out in pig farms on their territory following the provisions of Directive 91/639/EC. These data will have to be taken into account for the elaboration of the new proposal.

The draft Commission proposal will address in particular provisions for the keeping of sows in groups and establish separate areas for their normal behaviour patterns. The Commission proposal will then be submitted to the Council and Parliament for approval during the forthcoming year.

The Commission will propose to apply the up-to-date provisions on newly built farms. The application of the new requirements in existing systems is a matter of discussion between experts taking into consideration in particular the social-economic implications.

In point 1.1.4. of its Second Report on Reform of the Commission, the Committee of Independent Experts states 'the Second Report does not seek - by contrast with its First Report - to attribute individual responsibilities. Cases cited in the present report serve simply as illustrations of the wider points the Committee wishes to make'.

Can the Commission say whether it has examined these cases, whether it has asked for the names of those responsible, whether it can state categorically that there have been no cases of fraud, mismanagement or nepotism, whether it has asked the Independent Experts this and whether the Experts recorded or took minutes of the hearings or drew up files and, if so, who is looking after this material?

The Commission’s analysis of the second report of the Independent Experts is that there is just one additional case described in it (under point 3.12.3 and from point 3.13.3) apart from certain references to cases mentioned in the first report.

This issue, which concerns a case of export refunds which goes back to the period 1992-1994, has been the subject of an enquiry by UCLAF, whose report has been sent to the Chairperson of the Committee on Budgetary Control.

With regard to the Honourable Member’s last question, the files of the Independent Experts are currently held in the Parliament, which contacted the Commission to determine the status and the arrangements for access to them bearing in mind the commitments made to witnesses.

Has the Commission made a decision as to when farmers will be paid compensation following the 5.055% reduction in the Early Retirement Pension Scheme arising from the introduction of the Euro in January 1999 to participants who joined the scheme prior to 1998?

The reduction in payments under the farm early retirement scheme in Ireland, resulting from the introduction of the Euro on 1 January 1999, will be compensated by the direct aid paid to Ireland in the framework of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 755/99.

The Irish application for authorisation to grant compensatory aid, in relation to the accompanying measures of the common agricultural policy (agri-environment and early retirement) affected by the transition to the Euro in Ireland, was notified to the Commission 2.11.1999. The Irish proposals include compensation according to the maximum compensatory aid foreseen in the Annex of the above Commission Regulation.

At this stage the Commission is examining the Irish notification. This examination, is being carried out in conformity with the procedure laid down in Article 88(3)(ex-Article 93) of the (EC) Treaty and with Council Regulation (EC) No. 2808/98 which lays down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the Euro in agriculture. According to this Regulation, the Commission may take up to two months from the date of receipt of the application in question to approve the compensatory aid.

It emerges from the Commission's answer at Question Time in November 1999 (16 November) that the Commission will be regularly reporting to Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Directives 95/46/EC⁽¹⁾ and 97/66/EC⁽²⁾. The Commission will be ascertaining how the exemptions (State security, defence or public security, the detection or prosecution of crime and the unauthorised use of telecommunication systems) are applied in the individual Member States.

When will the Commission be submitting its first report?

In addition to the answer given to oral question H-0622/99, the Honourable Member is reminded of Article 33 of Directive 95/46/EC⁽³⁾ which asks the Commission to present an initial report on the implementation of the directive within three years of its adoption, that is to say by October 2001. Since this report will cover all the provisions of the directive and may be subject to proposed amendments, a time limit of three years is appropriate.

Before the day of action held by the European transport workers on 5 October 1999 the Commission sent a letter to the Member States pointing out that days of action of that type could be an obstacle to the free movement of goods, which might constitute an infringement of EU legislation. The governments were requested to provide the Commission with information within two days. The letter was signed P. Waterschoot at the Commission's Directorate-General for the Internal Market.

This was interpreted by the trade union movement in Sweden as clear interference in Swedish internal affairs. Freedom of association is protected under the Swedish constitution. For bureaucratic bodies like the Commission to start lecturing the labour movement in Sweden is an infringement of the traditional Swedish independence of associations.

Does the Commission regard the action described above as appropriate or a simple mistake?

The Commission has taken note of the facts described by the Honourable Member and, after verification, has concluded that there has been a misunderstanding. In fact, the Commission never intended to interfere in the trade union affairs of Member States and regrets that the Swedish trade union movement has experienced such interference in the form of the letter mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In this context, the Commission wishes to point out the following:

. The letter fell within the framework of the warning system laid down in Regulation 2679/98 and was simply a request for information in line with article 3, paragraph 2 of the said regulation.

. The letter in no way indicated that the day of action would infringe Community regulations. On the contrary, it expressly indicated that such a day of action would be covered by fundamental rights, namely the right to demonstrate.

. The letter was simply of a preventative nature, reminding the national authorities of their obligation to take the necessary measures to prevent any serious obstacle to free movement of goods, in the event that the day of action should get out of hand (for example, through acts of violence).

Looking to the reform of the common agricultural policy for the 2000-2006 period and having regard to the Millennium Round negotiations which are now getting under way following the WTO meeting in Seattle, what action does the Commission intend to take in order to safeguard the rural and economic development of certain regions such as Galicia, which require an increase in their milk quota in order to be able to modernise their agricultural sector and thus withstand any international competition?

The legislation on dairy products, as well as other legislation, particularly concerning aid to regional development, the restructuring of farms, aid to disadvantaged regions etc., already contain numerous instruments allowing for the modernisation of dairy farms. Their implementation is essentially within the competence of national and regional authorities.

In the dairy sector, Council Regulation 256/1999⁽¹⁾ allocated new supplementary reference quantities to various countries including Spain. It is up to national authorities to put these to the best use, for example to promote modernisation.

The Commission considers that Member States must ensure that they favour the competitivity of producers within the currently available reference quantities. A further increase in these is not possible, since the internal market is already saturated. Supplementary production could only be sold on the world market, which would inevitably harm the position of the Community in the WTO negotiations.

The reports of unlawful remuneration payments by the Commission representation in Stockholm have shocked many Swedes and aroused their distrust of the EU. People are asking how the Commission can be expected to manage its other payments if it cannot even do so in a small office with a staff of no more than 20 people. This bad impression is further strengthened by the unavailability of senior staff for comment and the fact that the person in charge at the time is suddenly on holiday. The absence of any sense of responsibility was the main criticism in the report by the Committee of Independent Experts which led to the resignation of the previous Commission. The President of the Court of Auditors has pointed out that, when irregularities are revealed, senior Commission staff all too often claim that they did not know what was going on. Many will regard the Commission's handling of this matter in Stockholm as a test of the new openness and sense of responsibility it promised. This is a matter of principle, regardless of the small sums that may have been involved. It is also important for Swedish confidence in the EU that the Swedish police be given access to all the material it needs for its investigation.

How is the Commission going to bring about an immediate change regarding the assumption of responsibility so that the public is not again to be forced to associate the Commission with a combination of irregularities and senior staff who shirk their responsibilities?

The Commission is fully aware of the concerns which the allegations of irregularities in the Stockholm representation have given rise to amongst European citizens, and in particular amongst Swedish citizens. It is, however, important to point out that the Commission has reacted to the allegations with due diligence.

In this respect, the services responsible immediately started a preliminary enquiry procedure, and the matter was referred to OLAF. The latter is carrying out all the necessary investigations at this very moment. The Commission would like to point out the strict confidentiality of these investigations, so as not to prejudice the results of the enquiry.

Furthermore, the members of staff who may have been directly responsible for any irregularities have been provisionally relieved of their duties and are on leave. The departure on holiday of the head of the representation at the time – which the Honourable Member refers to – simply shows the concern of the interested party and the Commission not to hinder the investigation, and reflects a strict respect for the presumption of innocence.

If OLAF confirms the alleged irregularities, it will fall to the Commission to take the appropriate action against those responsible, in accordance with the statute.

The Commission also draws the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that it is the responsibility of the President of the Court of Auditors alone to take responsibility for his words with regard to the attitude of the Commission officials in this matter.

With regard to the cooperation with the Swedish police which the Honourable Member wishes to see, the appropriate contacts have been made by OLAF, in accordance with the legislation and procedures in force.

Furthermore, to respond more closely to the question of reform in the area of responsibilities raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to point out the proposals which were included at this stage in its communication of 15 November 1999, entitled “Suggestions for a reform strategy” (doc. SEC(1999) 1917/2), and which will be developed and expanded on in a communication in February 2000 on the reform strategy.

Without anticipating the specific details which will be defined after a broad consultation – which Parliament is very keen to see – with a number of bodies, including the European Parliament, the Commission considers that strengthening of responsibility should involve three main channels: action with regard to personnel, both through an improvement in recruitment and through the development of training; action with regard to disciplinary procedures, which will have to be more efficient; and finally, action with regard to the financial mechanisms, through the establishment of a system based on the internal control of services and the creation of an internal auditing department.

In view of the recent undermining of consumer confidence in food safety and of the European consumer's clear concern over the standards which apply to the food industry in the US, can the Commission state how, in the context of the WTO Millennium Round, it will defend the rights of the European consumer? Can it guarantee that under no circumstances will it accept any reduction in protection as regards full information and labelling and the right to decide on what produces and ingredients can reach our supermarket shelves on the basis of the scientific evaluation of the appropriate European bodies?

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that consumer confidence in food safety has deteriorated over recent years, linked with issues such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy and dioxin. The Commission therefore stated several times that food safety is a major issue, not only in international trade but also for internal production. It is for this reason that the Commission is working actively on the white paper on food safety which the Member of the Commission in charge of health and consumer protection is preparing and which is due to be adopted in the Commission on 22 December. This paper will deal with the aspects of food safety from the “stable to the table”, and in particular on domestic production, imported food and the establishment of a food agency.

As concerns the World trade organisation and food safety, there appears to be a fear that WTO rules threaten the ability of members to ensure a high level of protection in this area. However, the SPS agreement, as interpreted by the Appellate Body in the hormones case, is very clear: each WTO member can set its level of protection as high as it wishes – even at zero risk, if it so chooses – and can take the measures necessary to achieve that level of protection. For this reason the Commission saw no need to ask for a re-negotiation of that SPS⁽¹⁾ Agreement in the new round.

Nevertheless, those who mistrust the WTO in respect of health concerns often point to the hormones case as proof that the WTO can be used to oblige the Community to import hormone treated beef, even when these products present a health risk. The WTO panel found that the Community hormone ban was not based on a proper risk assessment. However, the Community now has independent scientific advice suggesting a risk associated with beef produced with hormones. Consequently, the Community has maintained the ban and has launched a new set of studies aiming to provide more scientific evidence.

However, with regard to food safety the Commission had the intention to clarify and strengthen the existing WTO framework for the use of the precautionary principle, in particular with a view to finding an agreed methodology for the scope of action under that principle and guidelines for its implementation.

Regarding labelling, the rules are not clear in the WTO. While in no way intending to use labelling as a weapon to force other countries to accept the Community values without question, the Commission nevertheless had indicated its intention to seek clarity on the scope of labelling possibilities within WTO rules. In this respect the Commission wished to clarify the relationship between WTO rules and non-product related process and production methods, with regard, in particular, to eco-labelling, and in the context of the TBT⁽²⁾ discussion, where the Commission intended to seek to agree multilateral guidelines on labelling in general.

Now that Seattle has failed to deliver a mandate for a comprehensive negotiating round, the Commission will have to examine how to pursue its objectives regarding food safety and labelling in the post-Seattle context.

There have been worrying reports in the media about the possible illegal presence in the EU of children from non-Community countries who are being 'looked after' with a view to 'exploiting' their sporting abilities, as footballers, in this instance.

Trade in child footballers, which has been proved to take place in certain EU countries, and alleged in others, may, for these children, constitute yet another episode in a history of criminal abuse and exploitation, over and above being a violation of their fundamental rights and the risk that they may find themselves abandoned on the street if they turn out to be less than potential stars.

Have the appropriate EU authorities taken measures to prevent this exploitation of minors? If not, will such measures be taken?

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s view that these practices should be condemned. They constitute a violation of the human dignity of children and of the fundamental principles of sporting ethics. Sport should play an educational role and contribute to social integration. These practices are the antithesis of the values which sport is supposed to defend.

The Commission has prepared, with the European Council in Helsinki in mind, a report on the evolution of sport in Europe, in which it states that the excessive commercialisation of sporting activities may lead to unacceptable practices. The Commission also stresses the need to protect the health of sportspeople, in particular the younger ones. Furthermore it confirms its commitment to the protection and education of young sportspeople.

However, while sharing the Honourable Member’s approach, the Commission considers that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, this action comes rather within the competence of national authorities, since it directly concerns the working conditions of foreign minors. Therefore, it falls to the Member States to act in the first place.

In this context, the Commission points out that Council Directive 94/33/EC, on the protection of young people at work, obliges Member States to take the necessary measures to prohibit child labour. However, it allows Member States to authorise, according to certain conditions and procedures, the employment of children for activities of a cultural, artistic, sporting and advertising nature. The provisions of that directive are applied insofar as the young people in question have a working relationship regulated by the law in force in the Member State. It falls firstly to the authorities in the Member States concerned to examine and assess the situations indicated with regard to their obligations stemming from the provisions of the Community directive incorporated into national legislation.

Acknowledging the Commissioner's commitment to reform and thereby engage the EU citizen in the work of the Commission and the European Parliament, will the Commissioner please indicate when the Commission will bring forward proposals to implement Article 255 of the Treaty of Amsterdam?

The Commission has carried out significant preparatory work with a view to the submission of a legislative proposal relating to the general principles and restrictions governing the exercise by individual citizens of their right of access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission in implementation of Article 255 (ex-Article 191(a)) of the EC Treaty.

The draft proposal will be referred to the Commission in January 2000.

The women's information service, until now part of the information unit for trade unions, women and young people in DG X at the Commission, has been providing information to European citizens for twelve years on the Union's policies on women and providing a permanent link between the Commission, NGOs and women. As well as being of special value to women with little access to the world of information, its efforts have helped to enhance the transparency of Union action and promote the values of equality and non-discrimination. In view of the importance of the work performed by this service, there is no doubt that the European public would be surprised to see it downgraded or abolished.

What measures does the Commission intend to adopt as part of its internal reforms with regard to the budget and human resources allocated to the women's information service?

In the context of the reform of the Commission services, it has been decided in principle to transfer the “Women’s information” section within the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs to its unit for equal opportunities for men and women.

This decision has been taken for the sake of the most efficient use of the available human and budgetary resources, while bearing in mind the specific nature of the tasks carried out by that section and synergies which could be developed with the Community programme for equal opportunities carried out by the same “Equal Opportunities” unit of the “Employment” Directorate-General in which the section will be placed.

Is the Commission satisfied that a genuine single market exists between those Member States which hallmark articles manufactured from the precious metals silver and gold and those that do not, and is national legislation adequate to ensure compliance by all Member States with the 1994 Court of Justice judgment in the Houtwipper case?

The absence of harmonised rules in Europe on articles of precious metals is due to the existence of different systems of marking in the Member States.

Some Member States traditionally follow the system of pre-marketing control under which the marking is struck by an independent body verifying the products generally called “hallmarking”. Other Member States follow the system of post-marking control of the marking that has been stamped on the articles by the manufacturer.

The Court of Justice in its Judgment “Houtwipper” ruled that Member States are obliged to recognise equivalent hallmarkings of other Member States and not require an additional national hallmark to be struck on imported articles of precious metals.

As a result of the Court’s judgment and the Commission’s actions, the national hallmarking regulations of the Member States provide for the mutual recognition of equivalent hallmarks.

The monitoring by the Commission of the application of national rules on hallmarking revealed that no major problems exist in intra-Community trade of articles of precious metals.

This is proven by the increasing volume of trade between Member States applying different hallmarking systems. Nevertheless, some minor disparities of the hallmarking systems between Member States continue to exist and are the subject of a few complaints submitted by economic operators and are currently treated by the Commission.

However, the differences between a hallmarking system and a post-market control approach justify barriers to trade. Therefore, the Commission has adopted a proposal for a harmonisation directive aiming at approximating the different systems of marking in order to eliminate these barriers. Parliament has delivered a positive opinion and the Council is examining the proposal.

The aims of improving the efficiency of the transport system and reducing costs can be achieved only by switching goods transport from road to rail. The Italian Government is negotiating an extension of the concession granted to the motorway company Autobrennero SpA. The company has moreover undertaken to invest part of its profits in improving the Brenner railway infrastructure by helping to finance the Brenner tunnel. The construction of the Brenner tunnel, which is a necessary and positive project, and the accompanying improvement of the railway line cannot justify any application for a renewal of the motorway concession which does not comply with Community law on public contracts.

Can the Commission guarantee that the tunnel project and the improvement of the railway line will not depend on the outcome of the question of the Autobrennero concession?

In the light of the forthcoming revision of the guidelines for the trans-European networks, what are the prospects for the Brenner railway link?

The further preparation and gradual implementation of the “Brenner project” (upgrading and partly new construction of the railway line between München and Verona, including a base tunnel between Innsbruck and Fortezza) should not be affected by the outcome of the case concerning the Autobrennero concession.

The Commission has supported the Brenner project (including studies concerning the proposed Brenner base tunnel) in the past through financial aid under the trans-European transport network budget line and participated in the work of the intergovernmental commission which coordinates the preparation of the Brenner base tunnel project.

The Commission is confident that, on the part of the Member States which are the responsible parties for the implementation of the Brenner project, continuing efforts will be made to gradually upgrade/build this TEN railway line.

The Brenner project has been identified in the Guidelines for the trans-European transport network, as a project of common interest; it is also included in Annex III to the Guidelines, setting out the 14 projects to which the European Council at Essen on 9/10 December 1994 attached particular importance. At this stage of discussion, it is neither foreseen to propose changes to the relevant “project of common interest” nor to Annex III. Not least the expected increase in rail traffic (in particular freight) along the Brenner line in the coming years calls for undiminished commitment by all parties involved towards the implementation of the infrastructure project.

Does the Commission have any plans to assist Member States in the development of comprehensive coastal zone management strategies and, if so, will it outline the scope of such plans in relation to coastal areas such as Ireland which is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the west and the Irish Sea to the east?

The Communication on the Integrated Management of Coastal Zones (ICZM)⁽¹⁾ announced a collaborative Demonstration Programme to “show the practical conditions that must be met if sustainable development is to be achieved in the European coastal zones in all their diversity”. The experiences of the Demonstration Programme were also intended to lead towards proposals for possible additional measures to be carried out in concert at the European and other levels to promote a sustainable development of European coastal zones. The Demonstration Programme was seen as a pragmatic approach to developing a proposal for an ICZM Strategy, as requested by the Council in its resolutions of 25 February 1992 and 6 May 1994.

The ICZM Demonstration Programme finished with a broad consultation, organised on the basis of two “unofficial” documents that summarised the lessons of the programme. The consultation was intended to allow the a priori participation of all interested or affected actors in the preparation of recommendations concerning the appropriate measures to be taken at the Community level to promote ICZM.

The results of the programme and consultation are now being condensed into a Commission Communication which will propose a European Strategy for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. This Communication is still in the drafting phase, but it is intended to outline a coherent series of measures to ensure that the Community plays an appropriate role in ensuring the sustainable management of coastal zones, in partnership with actors at the national, regional and local level.

As the Commission is aware, Ireland has an extensive coastline. On 19 November last, a British registered vessel, Posidonia, was intercepted off the west coast of Cork following a tip-off and IEP 15 million worth of cannabis was seized in a combined operation by Irish naval, customs and police forces. The drugs were destined for export to continental Europe. Despite successes in seizing illegal drugs, it is estimated that a drug trafficker's chance of landing undetected shipments in Ireland is 20 times greater than on other European coastlines.

Given that drug smuggling has no borders and is operated on a European and world-wide basis and that the EU is bound by the Treaty to fight illicit drug trafficking and, furthermore, taking into account the recent conclusions of the Tampere Council and the commitment to addressing the drugs problem in a comprehensive manner, will the Commission, as part of such a commitment, indicate what resources it could make available to the Irish authorities to set up and maintain a US-style coastguard which could be deployed to intercept and deter drug smugglers?

As the Honourable Member points out, the conclusions of the Tampere Summit did refer to the fight against illicit drug trafficking as being a priority area for police cooperation within the Union.

Accordingly, the European Council called for joint teams to be set up to conduct inquiries in particular into how networks of drug traffickers could be destroyed, and it also called for representatives of Europol to be involved in such inquiries.

The Commission is well aware that the configuration of the Irish coastline is such that it is easier for traffickers to land large quantities of drugs in Ireland than elsewhere and that it is very difficult to keep the entire Irish coastline under surveillance. However, countries other than Ireland also have similar geographical features.

The Commission is not planning to propose that specific resources be allocated to fund an increase in the numbers employed in the Irish Coastguard Service; since it takes the view that that is a matter for the Member States. Union Programmes – OISIN and Customs 2000 – have, however, been implemented in order to support cooperation between services combating illicit trafficking. Accordingly, they are contributing towards an improvement in the effectiveness of the campaigns carried out by the national services.

Recalling the decision of Parliament and Council to supply food aid to Russia, including 100,000 tons of pig meat, could the Commission state why all of this has not been delivered?

The programme for the supply of agricultural products to the Russian Federation was delayed for a number of reasons, among which were the following:

The tender relating to supply of 40 000 tonnes of pork meat was suspended from 8 June 1999 until 19 August 1999 as a result of the dioxin problem in Belgium. When re-opened, due to an absence of offers for certain lots, only 36 500 tonnes were purchased, bringing the total pork purchased to 58 500 tonnes. The mobilisation of pork meat, requiring a two phase tendering process (purchase tender followed by transport) is particularly lengthy compared to the mobilisation of intervention goods.

Agreement was not reached until mid-July on net pork prices to be used in estimating internal sales prices in Russia, these estimates to be used as a basis for advance payments by the Russian authorities into a special account.

Revised list of destinations presented by Russian authorities required Commission approval which did not take place until 28 July 1999.

Delivery of beef meat under the third tranche was suspended during a period of two weeks due to an insufficiency of storage space at the destinations designated by the Russian authorities.

On several occasions, the Commission considered the prices offered to be too high and therefore passed to the second tendering date which resulted in a delay of two weeks on each occasion.

Completion of the programme as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding would call for the further mobilisation of approximately 41 500 tonnes of pork, 10 000 tonnes of beef and 5 000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder. If a political decision is taken to do so, it will require a non-automatic carry forward of credits from the 1999 financial year to the year 2000.

Will the Commission indicate if it is aware of the existence of a crisis in Ireland for sheep farmers and that many farmers will be unable to remain in sheep production due to the fact that there is no profitability in sheep production, and will the Commission indicate if it has any proposals to address the critical situation facing Irish sheep farmers?

The Commission is aware of the difficulties, which have been experienced by sheep farmers in Ireland and other Member States over recent months. Although in 1999, a return to a more normal seasonal marketing pattern has been seen, this has given rise to an oversupply of lambs on the market. In order to alleviate the situation, the Commission adopted a measure introducing aid for private storage at the beginning of October, as well as the second advance on the ewe premium which was payable from the middle of October. There are no indications of a recovery in prices. Since the end of October, prices in Ireland have risen by almost 14%.

It is clear that the long-term viability of the sector must depend on the improvement of quality in order to respond to the needs of consumers. If this problem is addressed sheep farming can compete favourable with beef or arable crops and be profitable for farmers.

Regulation (EC) 1239/98⁽¹⁾ prohibits the use of driftnets for tuna fishing in the Atlantic and Mediterranean with effect from 1 January 2002. The regulation stipulates that in 1998 the number of vessels per Member State may not exceed 60% of the fishing vessels which used drift-nets during the period 1995 to 1997.

What method and what measures is the Commission adopting to verify whether the information provided by the Member States concerning the plan for the gradual reduction in the size of fleets is accurate and not in breach of the regulation? Does it intend to impose penalties on those countries not introducing a gradual reduction in their fleets? Will it provide annual figures for the gradual reduction in the fleet planned for the period 1999 to 2001?

With regard to the first question, that is the method employed by the Commission to collect information, the lists of vessels authorised in 1998 and 1999, which have been forwarded to the Commission, have been verified in relation to the information on all the vessels which have used one or more driftnets, even if on only one occasion, in each of the years of the period mentioned. According to this verification, the above-mentioned provision has been respected. Consequently, and on the basis of all the information available to the Commission, it does not have any reason to draw any other conclusion. The Honourable Member should also refer to the answers given to written questions P­1537/99, E­1561/99 and P­2067/99.

With regard to any possible penalties, the Commission will apply the appropriate procedures, laid down in the Treaty, if it considers that a Member State has not fulfilled its obligations. These procedures could have financial consequences for the Member State in question if it does not implement the decisions of the Court of Justice.

As for the timetable, the above-mentioned regulation lays down the comprehensive ban on the use of driftnets for tuna fishing as of 1 January 2002, and a provision limiting the number of authorised netters before that date, the available information indicating that this has been complied with.

The Commission has still not transposed the ICCAT recommendation of November 1998 on limiting fishing capacity for the northern albacore fishery, although this recommendation was promoted by the EU itself and the Union had promised ICCAT to comply with it, so as to prevent any repetition of the fleets' fishing levels of 1993-1995. In the meantime, on 21 November 1999 a new ICCAT recommendation was adopted, confirming the substance of its predecessor and stressing the need for limits on fishing capacity.

Nonetheless, time seems to have run out for the Commission, as it has still taken no action on the matter.

Can the Commission explain the reasons for its failure to act? On what grounds is it continuing to postpone adoption of the regulation transposing the ICCAT rules? How does it believe stocks can be reduced if there are no controls on the application of the rules? How does it propose to reconcile the ICCAT reduction arrangements with those laid down in Regulation (EC) 1239/98⁽¹⁾?

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommendation concerning the limitation of capacity of fleets fishing for northern albacore will be implemented through a proposal for a regulation on technical measures applicable to fisheries for highly migratory fish. In order to have a more coherent Community policy, the commission proposes to integrate the measures adopted by the different tuna management organisations of which the Community is a contracting party into one single specific regulation. This proposal is currently at the final stages of preparation by the Commission, and will be submitted to the Council at the beginning of next year.

The Commission agrees that an effective control of fishing activities is of the utmost importance for the proper implementation of conservation measures applicable to albacore, as well as other stocks. To this end, each Member State is responsible for the deployment of sufficient means of inspection and surveillance.

The Commission will use its power as under Article 29 under Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93, in order to verify on the spot the implementation of control and conservation measures by the Member States.

As regards any measures for the management of the northern albacore fishery on the initiative of the Community, ICCAT referred the matter to its SCRS (Standing Committee for Research and Statistics) with a view to evaluating the strength of current fishing and proposing any appropriate measures, should current measures be deemed unsatisfactory. As far as the Community is concerned, it is up to the Member States to provide the best data available.

As regards the relationship between ICCAT and the phasing out of driftnets, it is to be noted that these obligations are of a different nature; the ICCAT recommendation concerns all fishing gear participating in the northern albacore fishery, not only driftnets. Consequently, the implementation of both obligations is independent.

On 2 March 1998 and 10 March 1999 I tabled questions to the Commission on the compatibility of the French electricity law with the electricity directive and European rules on competition. The Commission's reply was that it would look into the matter.

Is the Commission aware that on 18 November the French Senate rejected the new French electricity law, the purpose of which was to liberalise the electricity market?

Is the Commission aware that as a result France is unable to comply with the reciprocity principle and that for this reason the Netherlands will not allow electricity from France for customers under 100 Gwh?

Has the Commission initiated an infringement procedure against France because the French electricity market will not be liberalised on 1 January 2000? If not, what specific action will the Commission take, and when?

The Commission regrets the postponement of the adoption of the draft law on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, intended to transpose, in France, Directive 92/96/EC on the common rules for the internal electricity market and to guarantee the right of electricity producers from other Member States to supply potentially eligible French consumers, and the right of French consumers to the free choice of their supplier.

After the failure of the joint committee of the French Senate and National Assembly of 18 November 1999, the Commission gave France notice to present its observations within 15 days, on 24 November 1999, in accordance with Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The Commission then reserves the right to issue a reasoned opinion. On 2 December, Mr Pierret, French Secretary of State for Energy, informed the Council on Energy that the French Government had laid down provisions with a view to adopting the law in February 2000.

On the initiative of Électricité de France and in agreement with the French Government, industrial consumers of more than 100 Gwh (that is, 22% of the market) benefit from access to the network on the basis of public tariffs, for the transmission of electricity which may be bought from suppliers from other Member States.

The decision to implement the harmonisation clause of Article 19, paragraph 5, of Directive 92/96, falls to Member States. The Commission monitors its correct application and, in particular, that the market in the Member States concerned stays open to all potential consumers with regard to eligible consumers of more than 100Gwh and, where necessary, those declared eligible on the basis of the minimum degree of openness required by the directive.

The Board of Directors of ABB ALSTOM POWER, a company created by a merger on 30 June 1999, has announced plans to restructure its activities. Job losses have already been announced in some countries where the company operates. However, that scant initial information does not seem to be the last we shall hear about it. The situation, which is particularly harmful in terms of employment, raises a number of questions, with particular regard to the truthful nature of the information given to the European Works Council created in May 1996. There is, accordingly, a more urgent need to review and update the European Works Council Directive. Lessons must be learned from these events. Should not the Directive be amended and have incorporated in it the requirement of a six-month suspensory time-limit applicable to any restructuring plans so that an independent trade union report may be drawn up? What is the Commission's opinion?

The Commission has always underlined that whilst decisions on corporate restructuring must be left to companies, everything should be done to adopt a positive approach encompassing notably:

- the search for solutions which avoid serious social consequences like massive dismissals

- that these operations must be done in an acceptable manner in particular following proper and effective worker information and consultation.

According to the information available, the announced restructuring within ABB Alstom Power does not, at this stage, raise particular concerns as regards compliance with existing Community and national rules in the field of workers involvement, notably with regard to the Collective Redundancies Directive and the European Works Councils Directive.

However, this announcement by ABB Alstom Power highlights again the weakness of the Community and national legal framework in this field. The Commission's "Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community" (November 1998) aims to eliminate this weakness.

With regard to the Directive on European Works Councils, the Commission is currently assessing the operation of the Directive in consultation with Member States and social partners at European level. After this review process, and taking account of the progress achieved concerning the proposed framework Directive on information and consultation, the Commission will take the appropriate decision.

When will the Commission be in a position to confirm the Objective 2 map submitted by the UK? Does it agree that this map forms an excellent basis for the best use of Objective 2 monies? Does it equally agree that there seem to be a few statistical oddities in that areas such as Halifax, Withernsea & Goole have been omitted despite the statistical strength of their case for inclusion?

The Commission expects to be in a position to adopt in principle the list of areas eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds at its last meeting of the year, on 22 December. This would clear the way for consultation with the Member States and final adoption towards the end of January 2000.

The list of eligible areas is determined in a partnership between the Commission and the national authorities. It is the role of the national authorities to propose the list of eligible areas. The Commission's role is to judge whether the proposal is consistent with the statistical and other criteria contained in the Regulations. This involves technical considerations, including checking that the areas proposed underperform the Community or Member State average (as appropriate) on the relevant indicator. It is the role of the Member States to propose areas for eligibility under Objective 2 and the Commission is not required to formulate an opinion with regard to areas which the United Kingdom has decided to exclude.

Environmental organisations claim that unpublished plans to modernise and extend the ski resort of Falakron in the prefecture of Drama threaten to cause serious damage to the landscape and sensitive habitats in the area.

The region concerned forms part of the Natura 2000 network, contains endangered and protected species of wildlife, falls within the definition of a special protection area under Directive 79/409 and comprises an important sub-Alpine zone. In view of this situation, will the Commission say whether environmental impact surveys have been submitted for the project concerned and what they contain. If they have not, what measures will the Commission take to see that comprehensive, thorough and reliable surveys are drawn up and observed to ensure that the modernisation work is not disruptive and respects the ecosystem and the particular features of the landscape and that the adjoining habitats are protected so as to send out a loud and clear message that protected areas and the environment in general are in fact protected and not occasional prey to large-scale private interests?

The site known as Koryfes Orous Falakro on Mt Falakron has been proposed by Greece as a site of Community importance pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC⁽¹⁾. This site contains priority habitats and species; consequently, with a view to its future inclusion in the Natura 2000 network, any initiatives which may seriously compromise its integrity should be avoided.

The Commission was recently made aware of the problems raised by the Honourable Member and connected to the extension of a ski centre and has registered a formal complaint on this issue. Within the framework of the investigation of this complaint, the Greek authorities will be asked for information, particularly in relation to the preservation of the natural value of the site in question.

The Western Development Commission, which is responsible for the integrated economic and social development of the western regions in Ireland consisting of Counties Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Mayo, Galway, Roscommon and Clare, has submitted a detailed application for funding in response to DG XXIII's call for proposals aimed at improving the financial environment of SMVs.

Will the Commission now indicate if a decision has been taken on the application made by the Western Development Commission in response to the above call for proposals aimed at improving the financial environment of SMVs?

The question of the Honourable Member refers to a call for proposals aimed at improving the financial environment of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) (98 C 263 of 20 August, 1998), with deadlines of 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999, to be financed under the Multiannual Programme in favour of SMEs (1997-2000).

The Commission intends to develop financial engineering instruments in two fields: networks connecting informal investors (so-called Business Angels) and business creators on the one hand, and mutual guarantee schemes in order to facilitate access to loans on the other.

There was considerable interest in the call for proposals. In order to speed up support for the Business Angel networks, it was decided that the best proposals introduced in September 1998 should be financed under the 1998 and 1999 budget (without waiting for the deadline of autumn 1999), leaving the proposals submitted by 30th September 1999 for commitment under the 2000 budget.

During the last 12 months, the issue of Business Angels has attracted an increasing amount of attention due to the recognition of the important role that Business Angels Networks play in providing equity finance for new, young businesses. Thus a very large number of proposals were submitted by the 30 September 1999 deadline: 61 proposals for Business Angels networks and 13 proposals for Mutual Guarantee societies, exceeding the forecast available budget for 2000 by more than 8 times. This means that the selection committee will have to make a very thorough assessment.

The work programme of Directorate-General for Enterprise under the Multiannual Programme for SMEs for 2000 was approved by the management committee of the Member States on 3 December 1999, so that participants in the call will be informed of the outcome of the selection process early next year.

The epidemic of catarrhal fever in most regions of Greece is a cause for serious concern and shows signs of becoming permanent: it is decimating stocks of sheep and goats which are the mainstay of the Greek stockbreeding economy, is drastically reducing stockbreeders' incomes and is undermining the economy of poor, infertile and island regions which are prohibited from moving their livestock.

Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to address the multiple consequences of this animal disease for stockbreeders?

The Commission is aware of the epidemic of catarrhal fever which throughout this year has spread along the coasts of the Aegean Sea.

The disease has spread along the Evros Valley as far as Euboea and has appeared in a particularly virulent form on the Island of Lesbos.

The Commission has paid particular attention to this worrying situation and safeguard measures have been adopted as the epidemic has developed.

The Commission has furthermore contributed to the cost of the disease-combating measures implemented by the Greek authorities within the framework of the provisions laid down for the payment of veterinary expenses incurred through emergency interventions.

It will allow for legitimate compensation for the damage to breeders through the slaughter of sick animals in herds affected by the epidemic.

However it should be pointed out that the measures undertaken have not checked the progress of the disease.

The epidemic has taken on a new aspect and today there is an unprecedented situation.

This situation should be considered within the context of the changes in the global climate which have been recorded in recent years and which have a direct effect on diseases transmitted by insects.

It is, therefore, unfortunately necessary at this stage to accept that this situation is becoming endemic and to consider the best means to deal with the new circumstances.

The Commission recommended vaccination after a veterinary mission in Greece in August 1999, but the Greek authorities are not in favour of this option.

An adapted strategy will therefore have to be defined quickly.

It is the subject of a proposed directive which the Commission has submitted to the Council in accordance with article 15 of Directive 92/119/EC on general Community measures for the control of certain diseases.

On 14 October 1999 I tabled an Oral Question to the Commission (H-0603/99)⁽¹⁾ on the establishment of a legal basis for aid in the event of natural disasters. In its reply the Commission states inter alia that: 'Parliament did not consider it useful to send a clear political signal for the re-entry of urgent aid (in the budget)'' and that ''it is up to Parliament clearly to express its position on whether or not urgent aid should be re-entered (in the budget) before the Commission can examine the possibility of tabling a proposal for determining the legal basis for the provision of aid in the event of natural disasters'. However, Parliament has already sent the clear signal required by the Commission, namely by adopting the Bourlanges report (Budget for 2000: Section III 'Commission ', paragraph 47 of the Resolution⁽²⁾) at the second part-session in October.

In view of this new state of affairs, will the Commission say when it intends to draw up and put forward a proposal for determining the legal basis for granting aid in the event of natural disasters?

In the opinion of the Commission the paragraph of the report by Mr Bourlanges mentioned by the Honourable Member does not refer to urgent aid of the type granted in the past from budget line B4­3400 for “emergency aid to Community populations stricken by natural disasters” and which were dealt with in its response to question H­0603/99.

With regard to the Structural Funds, the Commission, at the moment, does not intend to amend the rules which have just been adopted. Furthermore, following the earthquake in Athens on 7 September 1999, experience has shown that the current legislative framework already allows the Funds to provide substantial aid in such cases.

The Greek Government is pressing ahead with a bill currently before Parliament which provides for the possibility by the end of the year of concluding contracts for projects and programmes awarded under the Second Community Support Framework, without the draft contract being previously submitted for monitoring to the Greek Court of Auditors and without the call for tenders being published in the Government Journal: the only obligation is that the contract must be submitted to the Greek Court of Auditors within 10 days of signature. This provision is due to enter into effect retroactively from 28/9/1999. Will the Commission say whether it considers that such a provision is in line with Community legislation and in particular the rules governing the Structural Funds, and what will the consequences be if the Greek Court of Auditors retroactively invalidates contracts that have already been concluded?

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it is unaware of the specific bill which is currently before the Greek Parliament.

The Commission notes that if the contracts covered by the bill fall within the ambit of the Community Public Procurement Directives, namely Directives 92/50/EEC on public service contracts, 93/36/EEC on public supply contracts, 93/37/EEC on public works contracts and 93/38/EEC on utilities contracts, their award may only be made in full compliance with the corresponding terms of the directives.

The Commission would stress that the directives in question impose a number of obligations on the contracting authorities, which cannot be waived on the basis of national legislation which is not in conformity with the terms of the directives. Thus a call for tenders has to be published in the official journal. Time limits for the submission of tenders have to be respected, and specific award procedures have to be followed. Any exception to the application of these rules has to be also in conformity with the exceptions expressly provided for by the directives.

The Commission notes that one of the conditions for the financing of specific projects under the second Community support framework is the compliance with Community Public Procurement rules.

The Commission would finally observe that the submission of the contracts to the Greek Court of Auditors for approval constitutes a national law requirement which is not imposed by the public procurement directives and that therefore remains within the field of competence of the Greek authorities.

In view of the Council of Minister's recent request for the Commission services to draw up a working paper on the implications of the recent European Court of Justice ‘Silhouette’ ruling, and given its importance for European consumers and traders alike, what action will the Commission be proposing to the Council to remedy the present state of uncertainty regarding trademark exhaustion? Will the Commission formerly consult the Parliament so as to ascertain its views on what future action is necessary, or does it at this crucial stage prefer to keep its services' discussions with Member States behind closed doors?

The Commission services' working document on the issue of exhaustion of trade mark rights has recently been finalised and sent to the Council and Parliament. It is also available on the Internet. The document should serve as a basis for a further and detailed discussion in different fora to prepare a policy on this important issue. Any comment on this paper will of course be taken into consideration by the Commission. The Commission will decide whether to make a formal proposal to change from the current Community exhaustion regime to international exhaustion, after this issue has been thoroughly discussed.

Given the structure of the new Commission, how does the Commission aim to achieve effective communication and collaboration between the unit in the Development DG responsible for health, HIV/AIDS and population, and the geographical desks, in particular of the ALA/MED countries, in order to ensure that innovative actions supported by structural budget lines are mainstreamed into geographic development cooperation programmes?

Achieving effective design and implementation by the Directorate-General for development and Directorate general for external relations of all sectoral policies – including health, HIV/AIDS and population – in the different geographical areas of the development cooperation policy of the Community is a priority. In the health, HIV/AIDS and population sector, efforts are being made to reach this objective.

The Directorate-General for development's input at the programming stage, also aims at ensuring policy coherence across different geographical regions.

More fundamentally, discussions on how to further increase cohesion in the Commission structure on development cooperation have been launched within the Group of Relex Commissioners.

On several occasions during the autumn, the Commission has stressed the importance of more open and transparent communication within the Commission, between the various institutions and with the public. I believe this to be important as freedom of expression is of fundamental significance for a free society. At the same time, I was disturbed by the Commission's handling of the van Buitenen affair after he published his book last autumn. I became even more alarmed when I watched an interview with Mr Kinnock on Swedish television on 28 October in which it became evident that the Swedish approach to public access and openness can hardly be applied in an international organisation such as the EU.

In the light of the foregoing, will the Commission say how it intends to apply the principle of public access to information within the Commission and whether it intends to impose constraints on this form of freedom of expression?

What does the Commission intend to do in practice to break this culture of secrecy and ensure that the EU institutions, particularly the Commission, become more open and transparent?

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, the Commission attaches the utmost importance to the transparency of its work. In fact, it considers that transparency ensures the greatest possible participation of the citizens in the decision-making process, and guarantees the greatest legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility of the administration with regard to the citizens. In this context, one of the key measures adopted by the Commission concerns public access to its documents. This is why in February 1994 the Commission adopted a common code of conduct with the Council on access to their documents. This code establishes the principle that the public should have the greatest possible access to the internal documents of the institutions, with the exception concerning the preservation of public and private interests and the confidentiality of their deliberations.

Pursuant to Article 255 of the EC Treaty, it falls to the Commission to present a legislative proposal on the general principles and limitations governing the exercise of citizens’ right to access to the documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. This new legislation, which will be common to all three Institutions, will replace the previous rules and will aim to optimise access to documents with the greatest possible respect for openness. The Commission has already carried out significant preparatory work with a view to presenting this legislative proposal to Parliament, envisaged for the beginning of next year.

The right of citizens of the Union of access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents enshrined in Article 255 of the Amsterdam Treaty implies at the same time that officials can provide information which falls within the public domain. The limitations to the general principle of access based on recognised public or private interests which must be protected, are the embodiment of the obligation of discretion laid down in the Staff Regulations for Community officials.

As regards the freedom of expression the Staff Regulations effectively impose on the official a duty of loyalty to his employer and contain restrictions on disclosure insofar as the official must act with discretion with regard to information he receives in the exercise of his duties and which is not in the public domain. This does not constitute an obligation of absolute secrecy but a justified restriction in cases where non-disclosure is essential for the functioning of the Institutions or the safeguard of rights of third persons for example.

Similarly, there is an obligation for all staff to ask for prior authorisation for publications, but the authorisation can only be refused if the publication is liable to prejudice the interests of the Communities.

All these restrictions are subject to control by the Tribunal and the Court of Justice.

The answer to my previous question to the Commission concerning brominated fire-retardants gave rise to several more questions.

In reply to my question as to whether the Commission intended to press for an EU ban on brominated fire-retardants, the Commission answered that a proposal for a ban had been withdrawn in 1995. In reply to my question as to whether a unilateral Swedish ban would constitute a threat to the free movement of goods and therefore be contrary to EU legislation, I was referred to Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty. An interpretation on the basis of Article 95(5) and subsequent paragraphs would suggest that Sweden may introduce a ban only if the problem is specific to Sweden. Brominated fire-retardants are equally dangerous for all.

On what grounds was the proposal for a ban withdrawn?

How are the references to Articles 28 and 30 to be interpreted in this context?

With regard to the reasons why in 1995 the Commission withdrew its proposal dating from 1991 banning the marketing of all diphenyl polybromide oxides, it should be mentioned that Parliament at the time had not issued an opinion at first reading, which prevented the codecision procedure from being completed. However, the Commission embarked upon, and is in the process of completing, an evaluation of the risks associated with three of these substances and their use, within the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93. The results of this evaluation will allow the Commission, where necessary, to propose appropriate measures for the reduction of these risks. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that, since the mid 1990s, the brominated fire-retardants industry has implemented, within the framework of the OECD, a voluntary agreement with a view to improving their control of these products.

The honourable member of the Parliament mentioned the applicability of Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty. To respond to this, the following clarification should be made. Only in such areas where harmonisation has already been adopted, according to the procedure set out in Article 95(1), EC Treaty, is it possible to invoke Article 95(5) of the same Treaty. Harmonisation measures to ban brominated flame retardants have not been adopted.

This leads back to the possible application of Articles 28-30 of the Treaty.

As the Commission mentioned in its reply to the written question 1976/99, a total ban adopted by one Member State could be contrary to Articles 28-30 of the Treaty, as it may impede the free movement of the goods in question; not only brominated flame retardants as such, but also computers and other electrical equipment, which are produced with such flame retardants to reduce the risk of fire.

However, a ban can be justified if it is indistinctly applicable to domestic products, necessary and proportionate. The justification must also be assessed according to the principles of precaution and prevention, the principle of rectifying environmental damage at source, and the "polluter pays" principle.

The incidence of infectious salmon anaemia in Scotland is widespread and spreading throughout the aquaculture industry. At the present time, the UK Government applies a slaughter policy to affected salmon stock requiring the destruction of all the fish in an affected fish farm. Although these fish can be sold, severe losses are incurred through marketing under age fish and flooding the market, causing a price depression.

Can the Commission confirm that they will provide the necessary resources to compensate affected fish farmers, on a co-financing basis with the UK Government?

The Commission deeply regrets the heavy losses suffered by the Scottish salmon farming industry due to the presence of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA). This is a severe blow to a sector which is already under strain on account of a fragile market situation for salmon.

The Commission is concerned about the consequences of the disease and of the disease control policy for the sector. Possibilities exist under Community legislation for Member States to grant a national financial aid in case of disease outbreaks in the new aquaculture sector. For that purpose, the authorities of the Member State concerned shall notify the draft measures to the Commission. According to the guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture, measures aimed at compensating losses suffered by the producers may be deemed compatible with the common market provided that an eradication plan is decided by the competent authorities. So far the Commission has not received any formal request for Community aid from the British authorities in this case. Community financial compensation does not exist at present. However, Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field⁽¹⁾ lists, in its Article 3, the animal diseases for which an emergency financial compensation by the Community may be granted. This financial contribution must be 50% of the costs incurred by the Member State in compensating owners for the slaughter and destruction of animals and for other disease control measures; where vaccination has been decided upon, this must be 100% of the costs of supply of vaccine and 50% of the costs incurred for carrying out the vaccination. ISA is however not included in the list of diseases eligible for compensation. Its inclusion requires a Decision by the Commission in accordance with the procedure of the Standing Veterinary Committee.

Further to Article 3, Council Decision 90/424/EEC introduces in its Article 24 the possibility for a Community financial measure for the eradication and monitoring of certain diseases. This compensation is based on the approval of annual programmes to be submitted by the Member States. These programmes shall supply all the appropriate financial information and shall indicate in particular the total estimated cost of carrying out the programme. The level of Community financial contribution in this case shall be fixed at 50% of the costs incurred by the Member States by way of compensation for owners for the slaughter of the animals. ISA is however not included in the list of diseases to which Article 24 applies. Its inclusion requires a Council Decision upon a formal proposal from the Commission.

The Commission will examine whether it is appropriate to take action for the inclusion of ISA in one of the lists referred to in Decision 90/424/EEC. Before taking such a decision, the Commission wants to make a complete assessment of the situation in order to have a clear idea about the impact of a decision on financial compensation.