Severe ozone depletion (60%) occurred in the Arctic stratosphere this winter and concern has been expressed at the likely effect on ozone levels over Europe as a consequence. Does the Council consider that the early development of a European Research Area, involving scientists from all EU countries including Ireland, would facilitate the adoption of new measures aimed at halting the depletion of the ozone layer, thereby protecting the environment and public health?

The Council shares the concern of the honourable Member for the depleting of the ozone layer. As he knows of course, the Council and the European Parliament will very soon formally adopt the Regulation agreed in the conciliation process regarding the further strengthening of the protection of the ozone layer. This Regulation is an important step by which the European Union reaffirms its leading role worldwide in this area.

The question regarding a European Research Area is certainly interesting, but before the Council can take a position on this suggestion, it would be necessary that the Commission study it in the light of existing research activities and coordination of research and present an appropriate initiative to Council.

The Commission has made the fight against doping in sport a priority and recently published proposals to enable pilot projects to be established relating to information campaigns and conferences on ways to harmonise the fight against doping.

What are the Council’s views on this issue and what approach does it intend to adopt with regard to the European national football championships in June and the forthcoming Olympic Games?

The Council is fully aware of the problems of doping in sport and has always given a particular importance to information campaigns related to the fight against doping in sport.

The Council takes note of the Commission’s communication concerning a Community support plan to combat doping in sport bearing in mind the need to study the grounds for competence to act in this field.

However, the Commission has not submitted a proposal to the Council with a view of harmonising the fight against doping in sport.

The Italian Prime Minister, Mr Amato, has stated that the staging of a festival in Rome to celebrate World Gay Pride 2000 would be ‘inappropriate’. After months of controversy, the Italian Government’s spurious opposition to a peaceful festival is continuing to harden, to the extent of appearing to be a discrimination-driven violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The right to demonstrate and the freedoms of assembly and association, expression, thought and conscience, not to mention the ban on discrimination, are common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States and are therefore general principles of Community law. In the light of this, and given that the Union respects fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (Article 6(2), TEU) and is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 6(1), TEU), should the Council not take action against Italy under the procedures provided for in Article 7 of the TEU?

The Council has never needed to debate the facts referred to in Mr Turco’s question, and it is not therefore in a position to make a statement as to the merit, details and implications of these facts.

However, in general terms the Council would like to emphasise, for Mr Turco’s information, that organisation of events such as the one referred to in his question is a matter solely for the national police authorities, one of whose tasks is to maintain public order. It is also important in this context to remind the honourable Member that the legal institution to which it falls to judge possible infringements of human rights and fundamental freedoms by a European state in the first place is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Within the limits imposed by the need to maintain public order, the Council obviously attaches great importance to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as these are cornerstones of the entire structure of the Community.

The European Commission is proposing the establishment of a Rapid Reaction Facility designed to enhance the European Union’s civilian capacity to intervene rapidly and effectively in crisis points outside the EU and is hoping that such a force could swiftly mobilise police, customs officers, judges and other non-military personnel for conflict-prevention and crisis-management. What is the Council’s view of these proposals, and does it consider that a civilian Rapid Reaction Facility could be deployed to help relieve humanitarian crises such as famine, floods and other disasters?

The European Council in Helsinki adopted a Presidency report on non-military crisis management which, inter alia, identified the setting up of a rapid financing mechanism, such as the creation by the Commission of a Rapid Reaction Fund, to allow the acceleration of the provision of finance to support EU activities in this area. On 19 May 2000 the Commission made a formal proposal for a Council regulation creating a rapid reaction facility. As the Council is currently examining the Commission proposal, it would be premature to make any comment on the draft regulation pending the outcome of that examination.

Objective 1 regions are defined as those whose GDP per caput, expressed in terms of purchasing power parity, is less than 75% of the European average.

The European average is calculated on the basis of the present fifteen Union Member States.

How does the Council believe that the average should be calculated after the projected enlargement, even at the first stage, bearing in mind that the GDP of the acceding countries ranges between 30% and 40% of the Community average?

Is it possible that a region of the Union as presently constituted will become ‘statistically rich’ owing to the ‘enlargement effect’ although there will naturally have been no change in its economic and social situation?

As Mrs Torres Marques is no doubt aware, the Union has already opened membership negotiations on regional policy with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia.

Negotiations on this chapter are still at an early stage, and the Union has not yet defined its position on various important issues such as the Structural and Cohesion Funds, as it does not at this point have adequate information, particularly in the form of Community statistics, to allow it to reach a decision on questions such as the eligibility of applicant countries for support from these funds. In view of this, these issues will have to be examined at a later stage in the negotiations.

Furthermore, the Union is aware of the need to avoid influencing the outcome of the negotiations in an area in which the acquis communautaire may be amended before the negotiations are concluded.

Will the Council outline the diversity of opinion within the Council on the future of Europe and the essential values on which it is founded, with particular regard to ‘the transition from a union of states to full parliamentarisation as a European Federation’ as was advocated by German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, in his recent speech at Berlin’s Humboldt University, will the Council state if it had foreknowledge of this statement and will it therefore outline its position on federalism, a point of view which could deny the very foundation of the EU, i.e., respect for diversity and subsidiarity?

As the honourable Member is undoubtedly aware, any change to the institutional structure which is the basis of the European Union requires the Treaty to be amended.

He must also be aware that any revision of the Treaty has to respect Article 48 thereof, which stipulates that:

‘The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.

If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the Conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area’.

As the honourable Member can see from this text, the Council, therefore, as an institution, does not take part in the Intergovernmental Conference responsible for revising the Treaty and for that reason, it is out of the question that it could adopt a position on proposals for such a revision, all the more so when, as the honourable Member observes, the statement in question was not made at a formal sitting of the Council.

For fifty years the peoples of Nagaland, an area in the north-east of India, have been involved in a bloody conflict against both the Indian Government and Burma. Two years ago the Indian Government and representatives of Nagaland began negotiations with a view to arriving at a fair political solution to the conflict, and a cease-fire came into force. On 19 January 2000 Mr T. Muivah, Secretary-General of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), was arrested in Thailand as he was travelling to the Netherlands to participate in negotiations with the Indian Prime Minister’s representative. He was charged with possession of false travel documents. In view of Mr Muivah’s extremely important role in the talks, his detention is likely to be detrimental to the ongoing negotiations and the current cease-fire. Does the Council agree that it is proper for the goodwill currently demonstrated by both parties to be encouraged? If so, does the Council not consider it would be desirable to provide Mr Muivah with an official laissez-passer to enable him to move freely throughout the European Union so that he may participate under the best possible conditions in the negotiations with the Indian Government’s representatives? Similarly, does the Council not consider that a polite approach to the Thai authorities might be particularly appropriate?

The Council has neither followed nor debated the very specific issues raised by Mr Dupuis. It is not therefore in a position to decide whether or not it should issue any official travel document to Mr Muivah, nor can it at this stage consider making any representations to the Thai authorities in this respect.

What are the Presidency’s views on the statement made by the Commission President that a Member State of the euro zone could, if it so wished and under exceptional circumstances, ask to withdraw from EMU?

1. It is not the Council’s practice to comment on statements made outside its own formal meetings.

2. The Treaty does not include any specific provisions on the withdrawal of a Member State from the EU in general or from the third stage of EMU in particular.

At least 100 people, among them women and children, have lost their lives and many more have been wounded by cluster bombs which were dropped on Kosovo by NATO forces during the bombing of Yugoslavia. John Flanagan, who is in charge of the UN mine detection and disposal programme, stated that there are horrendous, unjustified delays in providing vital information about the number and location of the bombs dropped during the NATO air-strikes and many of them have not yet been detonated, posing a constant threat to the population.

In the light of the comments made by NATO spokesman Philip Anido that the detection and disposal of these bombs ‘do not currently form part of our mission’, what initiatives will the Council take within the international organisations and what practical measures will it pursue to ensure that NATO forces undertake fully to neutralise this constant threat to civilian lives?

The Council is fully aware of the threat to the safety and lives of civilians in Kosovo posed chiefly by unexploded anti-personnel mines but also by unexploded cluster bombs.

As Mr Alyssandrakis is no doubt aware, in sharing tasks between the main actors and international organisations involved in the difficult job of normalising the situation in Kosovo, it was decided that the EC would look after the “Fourth Pillar” of UNMIK, which relates to economic reconstruction and development in Kosovo.

Mine clearance and other related tasks, including the location and neutralisation of unexploded devices, were delegated to other UNMIK and KFOR “pillars”. UNMIK recently confirmed in a public statement that mines had already been cleared from over 16 000 homes and from 80% of schools. Over 15 000 mines, cluster bombs and other explosive devices have been removed from public areas. Awareness-raising programmes on mines are being run in communities throughout Kosovo, and this includes the training of local teachers. A programme has also been launched to provide victims with emergency aid, rehabilitation and psycho-social support.

Mr Alyssandrakis may be interested to know that the EC is giving financial support for the reconstruction of Kosovo for the period 1999-2000 up to the present via programmes totalling EUR 850 million, including reconstruction aid, humanitarian aid and exceptional financial aid for the year 2000. The total financial contribution made by the EC and the EU Member States during the same period is some EUR 3.1 billion. It is worth emphasising that ECHO has also been financing emergency mine clearance programmes and has been contributing to the work of the UN Centre for mine clearance, awareness raising on mines and mine mapping. This centre recently announced that over 1.1 million square metres of land in Kosovo had already been cleared of mines.

Miron Cozma, the President of the Confederation of Coal Miners’ Trade Unions of Romania, is serving an 18-year prison sentence after being convicted of ‘subverting the authority of the State’ in the militant demonstrations by coal miners in September 1991. Miron Cozma was sentenced immediately after the 1999 demonstrations by coal miners, though he had previously been held in ‘preventive custody’ from 10 January 1997 until 10 July 1998.

What steps will the Council take, in particular in the context of the pre-accession procedure, to secure the release of Miron Cozma whose conviction is the result of the coal miners’ struggle for better living standards, which in fact led to dialogue with the authorities after the 1991 demonstrations, for which Miron Cozma has now been sentenced?

The Council recalls that compliance with the political criteria for EU membership is a prerequisite for opening membership negotiations. The Council considers that Romania is continuing to meet these criteria, including the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy and the rule of law. Furthermore, Romania has signed the most important human rights conventions, which have therefore automatically become an integral part of its internal legal system.

The Council is conscious that the deterioration in socio-economic conditions in Romania led to various instances of civil unrest in 1999. To the best of the Council’s knowledge, Romania dealt with these situations effectively, whilst respecting the right to strike and to organise demonstrations. The Council recalls that the Commission itself recognised this in its 1999 periodic report.

The Council will continue to closely monitor the situation in Romania in relation to the Copenhagen membership criteria. The Council has not adopted a position on the specific case of Miron Cozma which has been raised by Mr Korakas.

The Organisation of American States’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has decided on the immediate adoption of a special protection programme, which is not being implemented in Colombia. Broad-based organisations in Colombia, together with international organisations, are calling for the immediate implementation of the programme to protect democratic movement leaders from violent attack and assassination, to quote the open letter from the Colombian Communist Party to President Andres Pastrana.

Will the Council support the immediate adoption and implementation of the protection programme in Colombia, as decided by the Organisation of American States, and will it make specific representations to President Andres Pastrana to that effect?

The Union has repeatedly expressed its concern about the deterioration in the human rights situation and the humanitarian situation in Colombia.

The European Union has also strongly condemned the grave human rights violations that have occurred in Colombia, just as it has condemned the acts of terrorism and the violations of international humanitarian law of which the armed groups are guilty.

The European Union has urged all the parties to the conflict to halt these acts of violence, to respect human rights and to observe international humanitarian law. The Union has on various occasions reiterated its desire to support the peace process in Colombia, on the basis of respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms, and it has stated its willingness to offer support in the most appropriate manner.

The European Union has stressed the need for the Colombian Government to commit itself to improving the human rights situation in Colombia, and has at the same time called for cooperation between all the parties to the conflict, without which it will be impossible to achieve lasting peace.

It will be up to the Colombian authorities responsible to define specific means by which the Colombian Government can guarantee that the leaders of democratic movements will be protected against any acts of violence or assassination attempts. The recommendations of the regional organisations to which Colombia belongs and the experience of neighbouring countries will certainly play a part in defining these means.

Can the Council comment on the conclusions from the Social Affairs Council which took place on 6 June in relation to the European Race Directive?

As the honourable Member of Parliament is probably aware, political agreement was reached in the Council on the framework Directive for combating discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, after just 5 months of discussions on the Commission proposal. A number of Parliament’s amendments were taken on board by the Council on the basis of the Commission’s modified proposal.

Formal adoption is due to take place before the end of the Portuguese Presidency. The Council is therefore most pleased with the speedy progress made on what it regards as a very important text.

On 26 May the Ombudsman made public allegations to the Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs concerning the difficulties he had encountered in gaining access to documents concerning the Thessaloniki underground railway. He said that he could not guarantee to the European Parliament or the citizens that the truth would emerge from the investigation that he was conducting, since it was blatantly clear from the five oral depositions which he had taken from the officials who were involved in the affair that these had been made on behalf of and on the advice of management, on the one hand, and on the other hand that the officials were bound by an undertaking to maintain professional secrecy.

What is the Council’s stance, in face of the obstruction of the Ombudsman’s work, with regard to facilitating the investigation of this complaint? Are EU officials who remain silent above the ‘laws’ and the Treaties and what is the ‘orchestrated’ deposition of the employees of the Commission hiding, since it follows from these that there was an intervention which departed from Community rules?

Does the legal status of the Ombudsman need revision so that he may conduct investigations without hindrance into all the areas which fall within his sphere of responsibilities, so that he may have access to all documents (as is the case, moreover, for all ombudsmen in the Member States), so that he may call Commissioners for hearings and so that he may take depositions from officials without restrictions?

The Council has never been called upon to discuss the issues raised by Mr Trakatellis, which obviously fall beyond the scope of its powers as defined in the Treaty.

The duties of the European Ombudsman are in fact governed by the provisions of Article 195 of the consolidated Treaty, which makes no provision whatsoever for the involvement of the Council, except in Article 195(4), which reads as follows:

“4. The European Parliament shall, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council acting by a qualified majority, lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties.”

As Mr Trakatellis will be able to see from Article 195(4), regulations governing the duties of the Ombudsman may only be amended on the basis of a proposal by the European Parliament.

How does the Council assess the current situation in Macedonia, and what progress is being made with negotiations on the association agreement with that country?

The Council has stressed the importance of progress continuing to be made under the Stabilisation and Association Process which is the centrepiece of its policy in the Balkans. The new Stabilisation and Association Agreements with the countries in the region will cover economic and financial support, political dialogue, regional cooperation, harmonisation with EU legislation, free trade and cooperation in other areas of policy.

With regard to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, since its declaration of independence in 1999 this country has carried out far-reaching political reforms so as to transform itself into a democratic state. Its political maturity has been reflected in its policy towards its neighbouring countries and in its cooperation with the international community during and since the Kosovo crisis. Its increasing respect for human rights and the rule of law, including the rights of national and ethnic minorities and groups, is worth particular mention.

Accordingly, on the basis of the Commission’s positive report on the feasibility of opening negotiations with FYROM, the Council decided to give the Commission approval to start negotiations with this country. These negotiations opened in spring this year, and there have already been positive developments in the first two official rounds of negotiations held in Brussels on 5 April and 29 May respectively. Further technical consultations will take place during the summer with a view to concluding the negotiations before the end of the year.

The food industry in the EU contributes some EUR 660 billion a year to the economy of the European Union and is also the EU’s largest industrial employer with more than 2.6 million employees. In what way does the Commission consider that this vital sector, which is so dependent on the output of our farmers, can be further strengthened and encouraged at EU level without, at the same time, unnecessary regulation being imposed?

The Commission recognises the prime importance of the food sector for the economy of the Community with more than 25 000 companies employing some 2.5 million people.

One of the main objectives of enterprise policy is to promote a favourable regulatory environment that is supportive to entrepreneurial activity. For this reason, simplification of regulation is high on our list of priorities.

This has given rise to the Business Environment Simplification Task Force Action Plan (the BEST action plan).

The internal market competitiveness of the food industry is safeguarded by making effective use of vertical legislation to lift technical barriers to trade. The international competitiveness of the food industry is reinforced via a number of instruments:

First, by improving trading conditions with third countries by means of preferential agreements on tariff and non-tariff barriers;

Second, by using the export refund scheme to put the Community food industry on a level playing field with third country competitors;

Third, the Commission has proposed the Inward Processing Relief Facility in order to compensate the reductions imposed on export refunds by the GATT agreements. This proposal is currently in discussion with Parliament and the Member States;

Fourth, the current and proposed legislation provides for specific arrangements for small- and medium-sized enterprises. For example, small exporters do not need certificates to get the above-mentioned refunds.

The Lisbon Summit stressed the need to encourage an entrepreneurial spirit in the European Union, but in contrast to the USA, where banks give loans on the basis of the merit of the project concerned, in the EU the project’s merit is merely a necessary but insufficient precondition, and banks provide loans only against the personal guarantee of the entrepreneurs themselves.

This fundamental difference can only serve to widen still further the gap between the EU and the USA in terms of entrepreneurship. That is a simple fact.

What can the Commission do to obviate the situation?

There is a certainly a gap between the United States and the Community in terms of entrepreneurial culture and individuals’ willingness to take risk. However, the Commission is not aware of evidence that there is any fundamental difference between the two as regards how banks behave when granting credit.

Indeed, a recent survey by one of the Community’s largest commercial banks pointed out that collateral was required for 92% of loans granted to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the United States and that an additional guarantee - usually from the entrepreneur - was necessary for around half of these.

Having said this, the Commission believes that facilitating access to finance for SMEs remains a key element in maintaining and enhancing the Community’s competitiveness and in creating jobs. For this reason it continues to work in a number of areas:

First, on improving the relationship between banks and SMEs through the Round Table of Bankers and SMEs.

Second, on increasing the availability of guarantees through the SME Guarantee Facility of the Growth and Employment Initiative and by encouraging the development of mutual guarantee societies.

Third, on increasing the supply of equity for SMEs through the “Capital Risque pour les Entreprises en phase d’Amorçage” (CREA) programme, the European Technology Facility, and support for Business Angels activity.

These and other proposals for access to finance instruments are now part of the proposed new Multiannual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship. The Commission is looking forward to hearing the views of Parliament on its proposal in the course of the legislative process.

As the Commission is aware, the 1999 call for proposals on the Fifth Framework Programme on Research and Development resulted in the selection of only 2 out of 98 projects regarding new technologies and the information society for which the target group were disabled people. Given that the call for proposals has been relaunched this year, can the Commission explain what measures it has taken to encourage the submission of research projects on design for all and access to new technologies and information and communication technologies for disabled people to the Programme? What measures have been taken to ensure the Commission will be more supportive in the selection of projects regarding access for disabled people to new technologies and the information society than it proved to be in 1999?

The honourable Member has referred in his question to the outcome of the evaluation in 1999 of 94 research proposals in Information Society Technologies for Persons with Special Needs. This evaluation was done by external peer reviewers who concluded that only 11 proposals were considered to respect the innovation criteria established in the 5th Framework Programme.

Furthermore, according to these external peer reviewers, only 3 of these proposals had sufficiently convincing exploitation plans to pass the corresponding threshold set up in the 5th Framework Programme.

Therefore, the Commission followed the recommendations of this peer review evaluation and funded only 3 proposals. This was clearly a disappointing result.

Due to the importance that the Commission attaches to putting the information society technologies at the service of citizens with special needs, the Commission recommended the unsuccessful proposals to re-submit improved proposals in the Calls opened in February 2000.

In order to attract better research and technological development proposals, the Commission has made more explicit the conditions to be met in order to pass successfully the innovation and the exploitation criteria thresholds. In addition, an information day was organised on 17 March 2000 in Brussels with all the relevant information put on the Cordis Website. Also, Commission staff participated in several conferences and workshops in the Member States in order to highlight these aspects. Finally, a Helpdesk has been set up to answer any enquiries from potential proposers.

It is the hope of the Commission that the evaluation of this new call, which is taking place in this month of June, will result in a higher number of good quality proposals with a strong exploitation potential.

What efforts are being made to promote linguistic variety in the EU and boost minority languages as part of the Commission’s current range of cultural activities?

The objectives of the framework programme are achieved by means of three actions intended, among other things, to:

“... facilitate access to culture and to ensure the increased participation of the peoples of Europe in culture, regardless of their social, regional and cultural diversity ...;

“... enhance cultural diversity and multilingualism ...;

“... contribute to increasing the awareness of belonging to the same community at the same time as awareness of the cultural diversity of Member States ...”

Furthermore, through the top-down approach – which is applied to the three programme actions, which takes account of the needs inherent to each cultural field – in books, reading and translation, the framework programme aims to “...improve awareness of literary creation and the history of the peoples of Europe, and the distribution of such material by means of aid to the translation of literary, dramatic and reference works (especially in the lesser used languages of Europe)...”

In addition, the Commission has made a commitment to promote indigenous regional and minority languages. Since 1983, on Parliament’s initiative, the Commission has supported projects particularly targeted at learning such languages, their use in the media and in language communities in general and the exchange of good practice between the various language communities, as well as the dissemination of information on and for such communities (financed by the European Bureau for lesser used Languages and the Mercator information network). The Commission is currently looking into the possibility of a Community action programme in support of these languages and cultures.

What is the Commission proposing to do with regard to regional minority languages as part of the preparations for the European Year of Languages 2001? What practical support does it intend to provide so that such languages are also taken into consideration?

How will regional minority languages be taken into account in the Media Plus programme?

The European Year of Languages is targeted at achieving the following objectives: making the population aware of the rich diversity of the languages of the European Union, and of the advantages of having language skills, the promotion of lifelong language learning, and finally the collation and dissemination of information on teaching and learning languages.

The languages involved are the official languages of the Community, as well as Irish and Luxembourgish, and other languages suggested by the Member States for the purposes of applying the Decision establishing the European Year of Languages.

It should be noted that the aim of the European Year of Languages is to encourage the citizens of Europe to develop their language skills and to introduce the linguistic heritage of Europe to them, without favouring some languages above others.

Most of the activities funded will be opened to tender and will depend on the proposals submitted by European associations and organisations. The Commission is also, within each Member State, going to fund events to publicise the Year, as well as a massive publicity campaign accentuating the richness of Europe’s diversity of languages.

As far as the Media Plus programme is concerned one important aspect is to support and promote cultural and linguistic diversity (which was also the case for Media I and Media II).

The Commission’s proposal for the Media Plus programme (2001-2005) covers the implementation of a training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry (Media Training) and the implementation of a programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (Media-Development, Distribution and Promotion).

The experience gained under the Media I and Media II programmes and the assessments of the results obtained have led to the conclusion that there should be a greater consideration for the specific needs of the industries in countries and regions with a lower audiovisual production capacity and/or a restricted geographical and linguistic area.

It is important to note that the Media II programme also takes into account specific needs of countries and regions with a low audiovisual production capacity or a restricted geographical and linguistic area. Therefore, the Commission has pointed out the need for an increase in the programme’s resources for these countries and regions.

The Cantabrian anchovy is a high quality product for which there is great demand. Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999⁽¹⁾ laying down rules and arrangements for structural assistance in the fisheries sector establishes various measures to find and promote new market outlets.

Would the Commission support measures linked to quality certification, product labelling and rationalisation of product names and standardisation for this product? Does it consider that this product, or its packaging, may be covered by any of the conditions laid down in Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EEC) 2081/1992⁽²⁾ on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin?

The Commission has constantly favoured a policy of enhancing the value of fishery products by means of structural instruments and market instruments of the common fisheries policy (CFP).

Therefore, further to the terms of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999, to which the honourable Member refers, Regulations (EC) Nos 2406/96 and 104/2000 provide, respectively, for action to standardise, inform the consumer by means of labelling and to specifically acknowledge producer organisations undertaking product quality improvement plans.

The Commission must, however, point out to the honourable Member that, according to Article 14 of the above-mentioned Regulation (CE) No 2792/1999, the action that Member States may undertake in order to promote fishery products and to find new outlets must not make reference to a specific geographical area unless such a designation is granted under Regulation (CEE) No 2081/92.

However, the Commission considers that a designation of origin for the product in question does not appear to comply with the conditions stipulated in Articles Nos 2 and 4 of the Regulation (CEE) 2081/92, particularly in view of the difficulty of defining the geographical area.

The European Council in Lisbon invited the European Commission to submit proposals to the Council on measures to apply Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty on the outermost regions in accordance with the report submitted on 13 March this year (COM(2000) 147 final).

How does the Commission intend to comply with the Council decision?

The Commission is actively making preparations to implement its report dated 14 March 2000 (COM(2000)147 final). It intends to propose a first raft of measures to the Council before the end of the year, particularly in the agricultural sector and in the fields of customs and taxation. Compliance with this programme does however also depend on the national and regional authorities, which, in a number of cases, still have to provide the Commission with all the information necessary to frame the proposals.

Will the Commission please provide an update on what progress has been made in investigating why new car prices in the United Kingdom are vastly higher than the prices charged for identical vehicles throughout other Member States?

The Commission is well aware of the high price differences for cars between the Member States and in particular with the United Kingdom, since it publishes a bi-annual report on car prices with a view to increase price transparency and consequently parallel imports. The differences observed since 1997 are partly due to the strength of the Pound Sterling and the additional cost of British specifications, together with the existence of low net prices in Member States with high car taxation like Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands.

The Commission’s task is to ensure that parallel trade, which is an important factor for reducing price differentials, is not hindered by restrictive practices from car manufacturers. Various ex officio proceedings have been opened against car manufacturers in this regard and some of them should be finalised before the end of the year.

The Commission was informed of the remedies announced by the British Authorities to bring down prices for new cars, when the British Competition commission’s report on car distribution was published on 10 April 2000. It will observe the effect of such measures adopted at the national level on the level of prices in the United Kingdom before deciding on the adoption of appropriate measures at the European level.

Price differentials for new cars within the Community will be one of the important elements taken into account for the evaluation of the Block Exemption Regulation 1475/95 for motor vehicle distribution. The Commission will, before the end of the year, draw up a report on the evaluation of the Regulation which expires in 2002. That evaluation will be the basis for the future regime for car distribution in Europe.

Environmental experts are emphasising the risk that one of the most important wetlands in Europe will be destroyed, even though it is protected by the Ramsar Convention, because the Axios, one of the largest rivers in the Balkans, 90% of which is in FYROM and the remainder in Greece, is being used as a natural sewer into which industrial units operating on both sides of the border are discharging their effluent, and in particular the metal factory (zinc) operating in FYROM near the Axios. This is resulting in a sewer running into the delta, containing large quantities of lead, cadmium, zinc, nickel, cobalt and other metals.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to stop irresponsible industrial operations and to protect the ecosystem of areas adjoining the Axios and the river delta wetlands in order to safeguard the ecosystem’s balance and ensure the health of residents in the region?

The Commission is fully aware of the environmental problem of the river Varadar/Axios. Therefore financial assistance to address environmental problems in fYROM has been provided under the PHARE National Programmes and CBC Programmes.

An allocation of EUR 1.6 million was provided under the 1997 Phare Cross Border Co-operation Programme Fyrom/Greece (Sub-project MA 9707-02 “Environmental Protection”) for a project called “Automatic Monitoring Stations Downstream the Vardar River to Monitor Pollution Quantities by Various Parameters”. The project’s objective is to provide for a continuous monitoring of the pollution status and open the possibility of rapid action against potential polluters. On the basis of the information that the project will be able to provide, the Ministry of Environment of fYROM is supposed to take the consequent measures to solve the pollution of the river.

In the 1997 national Phare programme for fYROM, 2 projects were financed (for a total contribution of EUR 2 million): (i) “Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building” and (ii) “Waste water, water quality and solid waste management”. The objective of the first project was to assist the Ministry of Environment in establishing proper to deal with environment protection, including water protection. The project will assist the approximation of legislation to the Water Quality Framework Directive and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive. Out of six components of the second project, three have dealt with water protection eg. National Waste Water strategy development and Waste Water Management system for Skopje. All the strategy is based on the development of the protection of particular watersheds that finally influence the main collector of Vardar/Axios river.

An additional allocation of EUR 3 million was provided under the 1999 national Phare Programme 1999 for FYROM to finance the following two projects: “Strengthening to the Ministry of Environment to adapt environmental legislation to the Community acquis” and “Environmental awareness raising, improvement of communication and environmental monitoring”.

The results of the above-mentioned projects and the regular consultations on Environmental issues between the Commission and the Ministry of Environment will contribute to achieve the common goal to safeguard the ecosystem balance and ensure the health of all residents in the region.

What reports has the Commission requested from the United Kingdom Government on the falsification of safety/quality control specification records on plutonium Mox fuel fabricated at BNFL’s Sellafield plant and subsequently exported to Germany? Has the Commission considered establishing a special safety mission to Sellafield in the wake of the series of safety problems that have emerged at the reprocessing and waste-management plant?

Immediately following the release of the report by the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) on the Sellafield MOX plant, The Commission contacted both the British Authorities and BNFL. Copies of the NII’s reports and the initial response by BNFL were obtained.

In response to a letter from the Commission, the United Kingdom Permanent Representative agreed to provide the Commission with up-to-date information on the situation at Sellafield.

Since then, representatives of the Commission have had discussions on the subject with members of the Health and Safety Executive and with the top management of BNFL.

On 18 April, BNFL submitted to the HSE its formal response to the NII’s reports. BNFL also sent a copy of this report to the Commission. There has been no formal reaction to this report other than a short Press statement.

The Commission has received invitations from BNFL to visit its Sellafield site and the MOX plant. However, it must be clear that any such visit could not be classified as a “special safety mission” as safety at the site is the responsibility of the operator (BNFL). Visits to the site to review its safety are primarily the responsibility of the competent national authorities, in this case the HSE.

With regard to radiation protection, the Commission will examine whether it is opportune to carry out a verification mission under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty. However it will be taken into account that none of the identified safety issues seems to be related to the monitoring of discharges of radioactive effluents or levels of radioactivity in the environment.

Thousands of EU citizens suffer from so­called Post­Polio Syndrome. In Spain alone, studies have shown that there are likely to be tens of thousands of people suffering from the after­effects of Polio, which include medical problems that prevent sufferers from leading a full, normal life. In Spain, the gravity of the situation has led to the creation of bodies such as the Madrid­based Association of Polio and Post­Polio Syndrome Sufferers, one of the objectives of which is to encourage the medical authorities and the scientific community to carry out research into the causes of the syndrome and its treatment.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the medical, scientific and social needs of persons suffering from Post­Polio Syndrome are met, in cooperation with the Member States and the various representative organisations and in accordance with the Treaty?

The Commission considers that there is no legal basis for action with regard to the Post­Polio Syndrome outlined by the honourable Member. The Post-Polio Syndrome is a late effect of poliomyelitis and neither specific anti-viral treatment nor prophylaxis are available for this condition. Management, therefore, is supportive and symptomatic, e.g. physiotherapy, which is health care, not included in the Treaty and thus the responsibility of Member States.

The efforts of the Commission are directed towards the primary prevention of poliomyelitis, in Europe and elsewhere and surveillance of and response to polio infections is a priority within the framework of the Community Network for Communicable Diseases set up according to Parliament and Council Decision 2119/98/EC. Only a polio free Europe will prevent new cases of Post-Polio Syndrome.

Accordingly, the Commission is not in a position to take specific measures to ensure that the health care needs of persons suffering from Post­Polio Syndrome are met.

Further to the European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2000 on the violence in Upper Egypt, what steps has the Commission taken to ensure that the Coptic Christian community in Egypt is fairly and justly treated and, specifically following recent events, that those arrested at El-Kosheh were offered a fair trial and, indeed, that the arrests were made with no element of religious discrimination?

The Commission was concerned at the New Year outbreak of sectarian violence and murder in El-Khosheh (Upper Egypt), the worst for 20 years. It was encouraged by the initial measures taken to restore calm to the area. And it looks to the Egyptian Government to make good its commitment to bring all those responsible to justice.

The New Year events in El-Khosheh were fundamentally different from those of August 1998 when inappropriate policing rather than sectarian bias by the security forces was the key problem. The matter was not well handled by the Government, internally and externally.

However, the latest events appear clearly sectarian despite originating in a simple commercial quarrel. In Upper Egypt, as elsewhere, chronic underdevelopment can dangerously accentuate sectarian tensions. Measures to restore sectarian harmony must therefore go hand in hand with socio-economic development.

The Prosecutor General’s report was finally published after considerable delay. Its commitment to the prosecution of the instigators, and the subsequent arrest of over 30 suspects, was encouraging. But its credibility was somewhat undermined by its claim that the riots and murders were not sectarian in nature. The final report by the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights has still not been published.

Claims that the arrests were not influenced by religious discrimination are credible. However claims that charges may be dropped against some of the most notorious alleged ringleaders, while not confirmed, are of concern. The Commission, together with Member State Embassies in Cairo, continues to monitor the follow-up to the events of January.

Sectarian violence feeds on poverty and ignorance. The Commission gives priority to a balance between economic modernisation and social measures (including poverty alleviation and the promotion of civil society and human rights). Upper Egypt is a target area for Community’s social and poverty alleviation measures.

The Commission is ready to assist with socio-economic development but the primary responsibility for restoring sectarian harmony lies with the Egyptian authorities and with the communities themselves.

The independent data protection authority in Greece has raised the issue of the religion of Greek citizens being recorded on their identity cards, saying it affects people’s private lives and can lead to discrimination against certain individuals.

In view of Article 13 of the Treaty, can the Commission say whether both the compulsory indication of religion currently applicable and the possible removal of this obligation, to be replaced by a voluntary indication, are compatible with the legal and political ‘acquis’ of the European Union? In which Member States is religion one of the items recorded on citizens’ identity cards?

1. Article 8(1) of the European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC, of 24 October 1995, on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, page 31), stipulates that “Member States shall prohibit the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, and the processing of data concerning health or sex life”. Consequently, the directive stipulates enhanced protection for certain types of data deemed to be sensitive. These include, among others, data on religious beliefs. The Member States are required to prohibit the processing of such data, given that this was considered, by the very nature of the information, to be a violation of the privacy of individuals.

Within this ban there are a number of exceptions, one of which may be the explicit consent of the individual concerned.

Moreover, processing sensitive information – assuming that it may be authorised under Article 8 of the directive – is still subject to the general legal conditions: Article 7a of Directive 95/46 stipulates that “Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if: a) the data subject has given his consent unambiguously …” and Article 6c of Directive 95/46 stipulates that personal data must be “adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or for which they are further processed”. Given that the purpose of an identity card is to identify the person by specifying details, particularly nationality, and since religion cannot in any case be considered as a key element identifying an individual, the indication of religion on an identity card, even with the explicit consent of the individual concerned, may be considered not to be “adequate, relevant and not excessive” in relation to the purpose of the identity card.

In the light of the above considerations, we find that indicating religion on the national identity card with the unambiguous consent of the holder may contravene Directive 95/46.

2. None of the other Member States which issues identity cards to their nationals makes any mention of religion on the cards.

3. The Greek identity card is a passport giving the holder the right to move freely and reside within the Member States. Indicating religion on the card may not be considered as an element required to identify the individual for the purposes of exercising the right to travel and reside in Europe.

There is a certain amount of disagreement regarding the significance of the sharp fall in the value of the euro against the US dollar and other major currencies.

Will the Commission therefore please state what effect the euro’s loss of value may be assumed to have had on employment in the EUR-11 Member States during the last 12 months (1 April 1999 - 1 April 2000)? How many more jobs have been created as a result of the changes in the exchange rates against other countries’ currencies? Is it possible to discern an especially favourable trend in employment in typical export-oriented sectors and a corresponding decline in sectors that are highly dependent on imports?

It is always difficult to assess the effects of exchange rate fluctuations on employment inasmuch as the effects depend upon whether or not producers expect the change to be sustainable.

So, in the short term, the impact on economic activity may be limited, at least in part, to redirecting products initially intended for the internal market to external outlets. Such substitution phenomena are likely to predominate if the economic operators consider the depreciation of the euro to be temporary and easily reversible.

Moreover, the usual delays in obtaining disaggregated data per sector mean that it has not yet been possible to analyse the effects on import and export sectors. It is not yet possible, therefore, to give the honourable Member a precise answer for the period 1.04.1999 to 31.03.2000.

The Commission is, however, monitoring developments very carefully. An initial macroeconomic assessment should be available by the end of June 2000.

Considering the fall in value of the euro over the past months, does the Commission now think it would be better to have the euro as parallel currency?

Does the Commission also see a need for a large increase in transfers to depressed regions once the euro is established?

The euro was adopted by the 11 Member States of the euro zone as their single currency on 1 January 1999. At the time, the participating national currencies were fixed at the irrevocable conversion rates with the euro adopted in accordance with Article 123(4) of the EC Treaty.

Using the euro as parallel currency is not an option anymore as the euro is the common currency and the national currencies are non-decimal sub-divisions of the euro. The proposal of having the euro as a parallel currency had been debated before the introduction of the euro, and it was rejected.

The euro is already the currency of the 11 Member States which form the economic and monetary union (EMU) area. Euro notes and coins will be introduced at the beginning of 2002.

Concerning transfers to depressed regions, there is no reason to think that the euro will increase the need for transfers. The economic benefits from the single currency (macroeconomic stability, lower interest rates, more efficient financial markets, lower transaction costs) will benefit depressed regions and thus reduce the need for transfer. In addition, within the Stability and Growth Pact, automatic stabilisers are able to work fully to counter an economic slowdown. Greater labour market flexibility should also enable countries to adjust their competitiveness relative to EMU partners if required.

On the other hand, the Community regional policy has been designed to answer structural problems of lagging regions, and thus reduce the gaps in socio-economic development between them and the rest of the Community. Therefore, Structural Funds are clearly not an appropriate instrument to stabilise economic fluctuations. Furthermore, as developments in recent years confirm, there is no a priori reason to assume that depressed regions will be worst hit in case of asymmetric shocks.

The Commission recently published its second Quarterly Review of the use of the euro and showed that the volume of payments in euros by companies has increased dramatically, almost one in every new account opened by firms is now in euros, dual pricing is widespread, payment in euros by individuals has increased substantially, the euro is now used in the majority of internet purchases, but the use of the currency in public administrations is expanding at a slow pace. What main conclusions does the Commission draw from its report, and does it consider that national administrations can do more to use and promote the euro?

The value of payments made in euros by businesses is ten times greater than the volume, principally due to the fact that many large businesses have switched to the European currency unit and because of the significant development of mergers and acquisitions (entailing share purchases in euros). The low level of use of the euro in transactions with national administrations must be put in perspective, then, especially as there is something of a time lag in the reactions of many indicators (one year, for instance, for income tax in most participating states).

The Commission nonetheless considers that it would be advisable to see a significant increase in the use of the euro by economic operators in 2001 in order to acclimatise them effectively for the new scale of values, thus preventing a psychological shake-up. Negotiations are underway in most Member States and within the Commission on the action which must be undertaken to achieve this.

In connection with the development of the special status of the outermost regions of the Community provided for under Article 299(2) of the Treaty on European Union, when does the Commission intend to publish its proposals for amendment of those aspects of the various POSEI programmes concerned with supplies and agriculture?

The Commission has adopted (March 14th 2000) the Commission report on the measures to implement article 299(2) for the outermost regions of the European Union. (Canary Island, Madeira, Azores and French overseas departments).

On this basis, the Commission will submit to the Council and the Parliament reports on the implementation of the agricultural measures of the Posei programs in these regions since 1992 and its proposals to amend the Council Regulations establishing them where this appears necessary.

It is planned within the Commission’s working program for autumn 2000.

What measures and specific actions will be introduced to help Europeans in the most disadvantaged regions join the information society and ensure that they do not remain excluded? How will the current disparities be overcome?

The information society for all is an important priority for the Community. It is one of the objectives of the ‘e-Europe’ initiative and its action plan, proposed by the Commission and adopted by the European Council in Lisbon in March. The rapid development of the information society is specifically included in the Commission communication on the structural funds and their coordination with the cohesion fund, programming guidelines for the period 2000-2006. As regards disadvantaged regions, the Commission is making preparations for specific measures and schemes in coordination with the Member States, with a view to promoting the development and opening up of such regions.

The honourable Member may rest assured that, in any regional action, many measures and substantial appropriations will be assigned to this priority. Indeed, when negotiating each Community support framework (CSF) and each Single Programme Document (DOCUP), the Commissioner responsible for regional policy is personally very attentive to this requirement. The areas concerned are infrastructure, small and medium businesses (SMBs), trade, tourism, administration, culture and education, transport, the environment, health and agriculture.

To be more specific, we may quote the following examples of action to combat social exclusion: networking of general interest communities, telemedicine and administrative services, reconciliation of citizens, support for businesses and intercompany cooperation, distance learning, Internet accessibility for school-age children, remote-access bookshops and the promotion of culture.

In its reply to my Oral Question H-0326/00⁽¹⁾ on the prevention of arms sales to third countries, the Council states that it intends to review the progress made in implementing the Development Council Resolution, adopted on 21 May 1999, on the basis of the Commission report on the issue of peace-building and conflict prevention as soon as that report is available.

Will the Commission indicate when this report will be completed, and will it give an assurance that it will be made available to the European Parliament? Will it ensure that a more stringent and binding application of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports is applied and that, at the yearly review of the Code, particular attention is paid to the following criteria: respect for human rights in the country of destination, the internal situation in the country of final destination, as a function of the existence of tensions or armed conflicts and the existence of a risk that the equipment will be diverted within the buyer country or re-exported under desirable conditions, and, finally, will the Commission state what influence it can bring to bear on securing full support for the adoption of the ‘Optional Protocol to the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child’ which, regrettably, certain countries have refused to sign?

In adopting the 1997 review report on the Common Position and Council Conclusions on « conflict prevention and resolution in Africa » of June 1997, the Council suggested that appropriate working groups of the Council should seek ways to combine the many reviews of matters related to conflict prevention into one single annual review document. The Commission has welcomed this suggestion. In close consultations with the Presidency and the Council Secretariat, the Commission will continue to contribute to such a combined report covering Union activities in conflict prevention in all its aspects.

Member States have up to now relied on Article 296 (ex-Article 223) of the EC Treaty in order to exempt trade in arms from the scope of application treaty rules, thereby preventing Community action. Instead arms trade is dealt with in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Full responsibility for the licensing of arms exports remains to national governments, but the code of conduct on arms exports provides a useful instrument for reporting and tracking trade in arms.

The second annual report on the application of the code will be drafted in the coming months. The Commission believes that experiences of the Member States from these first two years were positive. There are good grounds however for the continued strengthening of the Code and its implementation. The aim of the annual review process is to identify such potential improvements. Naturally any suggestions for amendments to the Code must win the support of all member states.

The Union has welcomed the recent adoption by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) of the optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The protocols reflect important international principles and represented an important step against exploitation of children. They will become important tools for the protection of children, both in conflict situations and in peacetime.

The Commission is convinced that if all Member States signed the Protocols at the earliest occasion it would give greater visibility to those instruments and strengthen the consistency of the positions adopted by the during their negotiation.

With reference to the Council Decision establishing a programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature of the Canary Islands (POSEICAN), what is the current position regarding revision of the programme, and what measures are being taken in the light of the report adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 299 (2) of the EC Treaty with a view to laying down a permanent statute for the outermost regions and determining the financial consequences thereof?

Regarding the revision of the agricultural regulations based on the POSEICAN programme, to which the honourable Member refers, the Commission expects to address the proposals to the Council in the autumn of 2000.

More generally, the Commission is actively making preparations for the implementation of its report dated 14 March 2000 (COM(2000)147 final). It plans to undertake an initial raft of measures this year. In some areas, these are measures within its own area of competence, such as the amendment of guidelines on state aid to regional development, which will most probably be dealt with at the beginning of July. In other instances, these are Council proposals, as in the agricultural sector, which has already been mentioned, or the areas of tax and customs. Compliance with this programme also depends, however, on the national and regional authorities who, in some cases, still have to send the Commission all the information needed to draw up the proposals.

As for the impact on the budget, the Commission recommends that the honourable Member refers to the conclusions of the Commission report dated 14 March 2000, stipulating that “special attention shall be paid to Commission proposals with impact on the budget in accordance with the terms of Article 299(2), under the financial perspectives adopted in the interinstitutional agreement of 6 May 1999”.

Firework firms are not included on the ‘blacklist’ of the Seveso directive (82/501/EEC)⁽¹⁾. Despite the express request of the Netherlands, there was no majority among the then EC Member States for this when the list was drawn up in 1976. The Seveso companies, whose activities pose a threat to their surroundings, are subject to comprehensive obligations to provide information and safety requirements.

Is the Commission prepared to include firework firms on the Seveso list in view of the threat they pose to their surroundings? If not, why does the Commission not think that firework firms should be included on the Seveso list?

While it is true that the manufacture and storage of fireworks did not figure in the list of potentially dangerous industrial activities contained in Annex I of Directive 82/501/EEC on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities1, a different approach for fixing the scope was chosen in Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances⁽²⁾ 2 (so-called Seveso II Directive). This Directive has fully replaced the original Seveso Directive since 3 February 1999.

The Seveso II Directive solely relates to the “presence of dangerous substances in establishments”. Moreover, the list of dangerous substances in Annex I has been reduced from 180 to around 50 substances in favour of an enlarged and more systematic list containing generic categories, such as toxic, explosive or flammable.

With these changes, the scope of the Seveso II Directive has been broadened and simplified at the same time. The manufacture and storage of pyrotechnic substances is for the first time covered by the Directive within certain threshold limits.

Last year, the Greek Government decided to assign the management of Olympic Airways to the British firm Speed Wing. However, matters did not proceed as the government had planned and the company’s losses continued. The new Minister of Transport has changed tack and decided that if Speed Wing does not buy 20% of Olympic Airways, the government will launch an international competition. At the same time, there is confusion over the release of the third instalment of State aid as well as over the assistance which Olympic Airways will need for the move to Spata Airport. What information does the Commission have on these questions and what does it intend to do to help with the restructuring of Olympic Airways?

The Commission’s present action with regard to Olympic Airways is governed by its Decision on 14 August 1998, whereby it authorised state aid to be disbursed to this company subject to compliance with a variety of conditions. In particular, the firm’s economic and financial recovery in the medium term was one of the key conditions. It was also explicitly stipulated that no further public aid could be provided in future.

The Commission brought independent consultants in to assess the precise position of Olympic Airways on the basis of the information regularly forwarded by the Greek authorities under the ‘monitoring’ procedure resulting from the above-mentioned decision. In the same way, it investigated the question of financial compensation relating to the transfer of Olympic Airways’ activities from Hellenikon Airport to Spata Airport.

The Commission considers that the Greek authorities must, as a matter of urgency, implement a restructuring plan involving private investors in order to ensure the long-term survival of the company.

The 135 environmental organisations which are members of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) have recently had their application rejected for financial support towards obtaining the expert assistance needed to enable them to carry out their work in connection with specific rules that are being drafted under the auspices of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).

It has been reported in the press that the EEB member organisations have therefore chosen to break off cooperation with the EU.

How does the Commission justify its refusal to grant financial support to these environmental organisations? What are its views as regards the queries raised by them in relation to CEN’s activity and, for instance, decisions CEN has taken concerning packaging consumption?

Concerning a European Environmental Technical Bureau (EETB) proposals and strategy papers have been presented at various levels within the Commission by EEB since 1997. An official application has, however, not been presented until today.

The Commission already informed EEB in 1998 that the Commission’s budget line was unable to sustain the EETB. In various meetings in 1999, the Commission repeatedly explained to EEB representatives to possibly propose an alternative funding structure. No other funding options were ever provided by EEB.

EEB has not broken off its cooperation with the Community (for instance, EEB did not withdraw its request for subsidy for 2000); EEB only suspended its membership from the European committee for standardisation (CEN) Strategic Advisory Board on the Environment (SABE).

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) has been funded under the Action Programme promoting European environmental non-governmental organisation (NGOs) (Council Decision 97/872(EC of 16.12.97) since its outset in January 1998. The aim of the financial contributions under this Programme is to provide support towards the costs environmental NGOs have in carrying out their annual work.

The total amount available for the whole Programme Period (1 January 1998 to 31 December 2001) is EUR 10.6 million, which gives about EUR 2.6 million to allocate each year. In 1999, the EEB was granted a contribution of EUR 580,000, which represented 22% of the total budget for that year (EUR 2 610 273). This makes them by far the biggest beneficiary under this Programme.

The following CEN standards in the field of packaging have been adopted:

EN 13427, Requirements for the use of European Standards in the field of packaging and packaging waste (the ‘umbrella’ or guidance document)

EN 13428, Requirements specific to manufacturing and composition - Prevention by source reduction

EN 13430, Requirements for packaging recoverable by material recycling

EN 13431 Requirements for packaging recoverable in the form of energy recovery, including specification of minimum interior calorific

EN 13432 Requirements for packaging recoverable through composting and biodegradation - Test scheme and evaluation criteria for the final acceptance of packaging …/…

In order for the standards to become harmonised standards in the sense of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, the reference numbers of these standards must be published in the Official Journal and the standards must be transposed by national standards.

Article 9.2 of Directive 94/62/EC states that, if a Member State or the Commission is of the opinion that the standards are not in line with the essential requirements of the Directive, they shall bring the matter before the Committee set up by Directive 98/34/EC giving the reasons therefore. This Committee shall deliver an opinion without delay.

The Commission is at present examining the standards before deciding on the further steps to take.

In advance of the mid-term review of the agricultural budget, will the Commission agree to organise an early follow-up to the 1996 Cork conference on rural policy in order to discuss the deteriorating age profile of European farmers, and particularly the fall-off in the number of young farmers, as well as the overall implications for family farms in the Member States and what, in the view of the Commission, are the implications of these worrying trends for the EU and the applicant countries in the context of enlargement?

Council Regulation (EC) 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and Council Regulation (EC) 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development (SAPARD) foresee in the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the pre-accession period both a mid-term and a final evaluation in addition to the ex-ante evaluations of the programmes. The Member States and the applicant countries shall submit annual progress reports, enabling the Commission to follow closely the situation in rural areas and to monitor the implementation of the programme and on this base to consider at that time the most appropriate procedures.

The Commission is now examining the programmes submitted by the Member States as well as the SAPARD programmes prepared by the applicant Countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

Nevertheless the Commission would stress the following points: as the continuation of farming in rural areas is essential, one of the measures decided by the Council on the basis of the proposal of the Commission is an important increase of the maximum amount of aid for the setting up of young farmers (by 67% if both the setting up premium and interest subsidy on offer are fully used). Moreover they can benefit from higher aid intensities for investment undertaken on their holdings.

In the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the same unfavourable trends (like ageing of population and farmers and negative migration) can be observed. This calls for an integrated approach embracing economic, social and environmental aspects of rural areas. The pre-accession strategy of the Community and especially the PHARE and SAPARD instruments should contribute to tackling these issues.

As the Community support under SAPARD – besides its first objective which is contributing to the implementation of the acquis communautaire concerning the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and related policies – relates in particular to solving priority and specific problems for the sustainable adaptation of the agricultural sector and rural area in the applicant countries, most of them have proposed some specific provisions to back up family farms and young farmers, although these provisions do not apply generally.

In the Written Question I tabled to the Commission in March 1998 (E-0161/98)⁽¹⁾, I asked when the European Gaza Hospital would be operational. The Commission then informed me that the operational team should be in place by spring 1998 and the hospital completed by mid-1999.

Can the Commission please inform the House why, now in mid-2000, the European Gaza Hospital remains unopened and not commissioned?

The Commission informs the honourable Member that the International Management Team (IMT), responsible for the commissioning of the hospital was appointed and has been on the ground as of September 1999;

The IMT complies fully with its contractual obligations and excellent contacts have been established with the Ministry of Health of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

The Project Plan - the basis for the commissioning work of the IMT - sets out the dates for admission of outpatients, 15 July 2000, and admission of inpatients, 15 October 2000, and thus the transfer of the hospital to the PA.

These dates, indicated by the Commission to the Parliament in the context of the budgetary discharge 1997, will be respected;

As regards the subsequent transfer of the hospital to the PA, it is crucial that it is not handed over before the IMT feels it appropriate to do so; the Commission urges the PA to make the necessary financial commitment in order to ensure the sustainability of the hospital.

The Commission would like to remind the honourable Member however of the progress report already submitted in early April to the Budgetary Control Committee as promised in the framework of the budgetary discharge 1997.

Will the Commission state what plans it has for further consultation with industry in relation to the review process of the common fisheries policy, taking into account the recent proposals to extend the Multi-annual Guidance Programme?

The Commission has recently issued a mid-term review of the fourth multi-annual guidance programme (MAGP), in which it suggests as a basis for debate the extension of the revised IV by a year. This would allow for any future fleet framework to be considered in the context of the 2002 review of the common fisheries policy (CFP).

The Commission intends to produce in early 2001 a green paper on the future of the common fisheries policy beyond 2002. The green paper will thus launch the debate on the CFP after 2002 with all interested parties and foremost with the industry, before regulatory proposals are submitted by the Commission.

The Italian Prime Minister, Mr Amato, has stated that the staging of a festival in Rome to celebrate World Gay Pride 2000 would be ‘inappropriate’. After months of controversy, the Italian Government’s spurious opposition to a peaceful festival is continuing to harden, to the extent of appearing to be a discrimination-driven violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The right to demonstrate and the freedoms of assembly and association, expression, thought and conscience, not to mention the ban on discrimination, are common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States and are therefore general principles of Community law. In the light of this, and given that the Union respects fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (Article 6(2), TEU) and is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 6(1), TEU), should the Commission not take action against Italy under the procedures provided for in Article 7 of the TEU?

It is not the Commission’s practice to pass judgement on public demonstrations. It is up to Member States to assess whether such demonstrations are appropriate in view of public order and public safety considerations, while respecting the principle of proportionality.

The Commission views the question raised by the honourable Member as belonging not to its own area of jurisdiction but rather to that of the national legislature and, if necessary, the national court, which must decide on the matter.

As regards implementing the mechanism provided for in Article 7 (1), of the Treaty on European Union, the criteria have been defined by the legislature itself, i.e. determining a “serious and persistent” breach by Member State of the principles mentioned in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission does not think this is the case in the honourable Member’s question.

The inhabitants of the Cyclades islands are faced with tremendous problems caused by severe disruption to ferry services. The now burgeoning problems began when a large ferry company, the Minoan Flying Dolphins, took over six other, mainly conventional ferry companies through mergers and buyouts. The company proceeded to withdraw the big conventional ships from service and change the timetables, using profitability alone as its yardstick, which has caused severe problems in terms of bringing supplies to the islands, long delays, arbitrary alterations, and the amalgamation and cancellation of services with far-reaching repercussions for travellers and the islands.

In view of the fact that a monopoly with a dominant position has been formed and that ferry services to the Cyclades have already been cut by 30% during the first quarter of 2000 compared with 1999, and bearing in mind the social aspect of ferry services, what measures will the Commission take in the context of competition policy - ahead of the tourist season and the significant increase in passenger and commercial traffic - to put an end to this dominant monopoly which is fraught with danger for the economic development of the island regions and infringes basic civil rights such as the right to high-quality, safe transport services which operate freely and without hindrance?

Greek legislation provides for the licensing of domestic ferry services. As the honourable Member will be aware, Greece enjoys a temporary exemption until 1 January 2004 from the Community legislation providing for freedom to provide maritime cabotage services. In view of the exemption, the Commission considers that it currently has no scope for intervening against the current Greek licensing system.

As regards the possible application of the competition rules, the Commission considers that the problems mentioned by the honourable Member have no perceptible repercussions outside Greece and therefore do not affect trade between Member States. The Community competition rules therefore do not apply.

The Commission therefore considers that it is for the Greek authorities to remedy the problems identified by the honourable Member.

The former head of the Commission’s information office in Stockholm is now the overall head of all the Commission’s information offices in the Member States. The person in question was head of the Stockholm office during the period when irregularities occurred.

Can the Commission guarantee that its investigation of this matter will not be carried out by the former head of the office in question or by anyone else who might be put in a situation in which she or he is not impartial towards a colleague?

The Commission wishes to point out that the investigation mentioned by the honourable Member was undertaken by the European Fraud Investigation Office (OLAF) which is independent in its operational function. The director of OLAF has forwarded the investigation report to the relevant Commission bodies as well as to the Swedish legal authorities.

In the follow-up measures that are to be taken after the OLAF report, the Commission will follow its usual procedures in the application of the relevant rules of the Staff Regulations. The persons responsible for the application of those rules are entirely impartial and do not in any event include the person(s) identified in the question.

What progress has the Commission made to date in its informal consultations with FIFA on that organisation’s transfer system proposals?

When are these proposals likely to be finalised and enter into force?

In December 1998 the Commission opened proceedings against FIFA on the issues related to its international transfer system that were not assessed by the Court of Justice in the Bosman ruling. An oral hearing took place in June 1999. While contesting the Commission’s position, FIFA announced at that time its intention to amend its regulation on international transfers of players in order to make it compatible with the Treaty provisions on competition and freedom of movement.

As the Member of the Commission in charge of Competion stated to the European sporting federations on 17 April 2000, these proceedings are following their normal course.

At the same time the Commission is open to pursuing informal discussions with FIFA, in order to establish an international system, compatible with the EC Treaty, which maintains a balance between clubs and encourages the recruitment and training of young players.

Some informal meetings have taken place recently between the Commission and FIFA and FIFPRO representatives. However, up to now, the Commission has not received from FIFA any concrete formal proposals for a new regulation on transfers of players.

For the moment, there is still some basis to believe that FIFA will table concrete proposals in the very near future. However, if these proposals do not materialise, or if they are not satisfactory, then there is no option but to present a proposal for a negative decision to the Commission.

For fifty years the peoples of Nagaland, an area in the north-east of India, have been involved in a bloody conflict against both the Indian Government and Burma. Two years ago the Indian Government and representatives of Nagaland began negotiations with a view to arriving at a fair political solution to the conflict, and a cease-fire came into force. On 19 January 2000 Mr T. Muivah, secretary-general of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN), was arrested in Thailand as he was travelling to the Netherlands to participate in negotiations with the Indian Prime Minister’s representative. He was charged with possession of false travel documents. In view of Mr Muivah’s extremely important role in the talks, his detention is likely to be detrimental to the ongoing negotiations and the current cease-fire. Does the Commission agree that it is proper for the goodwill currently demonstrated by both parties to be encouraged? If so, does the Commission not consider it would be desirable to provide Mr Muivah with an official laissez-passer to enable him to move freely throughout the European Union so that he may participate under the best possible conditions in the negotiations with the Indian Government’s representatives? Similarly, does the Commission not consider that a polite approach to the Thai authorities might be particularly appropriate?

The Commission thanks the honourable Member for his question which concerns a complex issue.

The Commission is firmly committed to settling disputes by peaceful means. Any form of dialogue with a view to finding peaceful solutions should thus be encouraged and a meaningful dialogue will always be supported by the Commission.

In the specific case of Nagaland and the events pointed out in the oral question, the complexity of the situation demands careful analysis. For this reason, the Commission has instructed its Delegations in New Delhi and Bangkok to gather all available information on the matter. The Commission will then analyse the situation thoroughly together and discuss it with partners in the CFSP framework..

Once the precise facts pertaining to this case are available, the Parliament will be fully informed.

Is the European Commission aware of reports in the United States that talc used in the process of making well-known brands of children’s crayons such as Crayola contain the deadly killer dust asbestos?

These tests on well-known brands, some of which are exported throughout the world, including the European Union, showed positive proof of asbestos fibres in crayons.

Can the European Commission inform Parliament of the action that it intends to take?

The Commission has recently become aware of reports in the United States that talcum powder used in the manufacture of children’s crayons may contain asbestos dust.

The Commission intends to contact the United States authorities to seek to obtain factual information on these reports and in particular the levels and types of asbestos fibres found and the types and brands of products.

If the reports are confirmed, the Commission will inform the Member States in order to ensure appropriate action under Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations.

It has not yet been possible to create a genuine internal market in air services in the EU; the proper infrastructure is lacking both in the air and on the ground.

European airlines are facing extreme pressure from tough US competition. The Member States have been played off against each other and have felt pressured into signing bilateral agreements with the USA. Through these bilateral agreements, the USA is slowly taking over the European market, while European airlines are unable to get a foot in the door of the US market. The result is a heavy loss of European jobs.

The bilateral agreements are contrary to the EU Treaty and the Commission should not be pressured to abandon the legal proceedings it is planning to take against those Member States which have entered into such agreements.

Will the Commission say what progress has been made with those legal proceedings?

The Commission fully shares the views expressed by the honourable Member.

An internal market also requires a coherent common external policy. The decision of Member States to conclude individual bilateral agreements with the United States fragments the internal market. Moreover, it does not create a truly open and level playing field between the Community and the United States in air transport. Finally, the Commission takes the position that, with the adoption of the third package (internal air transport market), the conclusion of such agreements now falls under the competence of the Community and is no longer a matter that can be dealt with by individual Member States.

The Commission is of the opinion that a common position is required as regards the United States. Thus it has proposed to conclude a Transatlantic Common Aviation Area between the Community and the United States which not only ensures full and mutual access to each other’s market, but also introduces all the necessary requirements to ensure a level playing field (convergence on regulatory issues, effective application of competition laws and also safety, security, environmental and social standards).

The implementation of such an agreement would benefit Community and United States economic interests, industry, workers, and most importantly of all, the consumers.

In view of the reluctance of Member States to achieve this common position, the Commission has initiated an infringement procedure against all Member States that have concluded such individual bilateral agreements after the acceptance of the internal market legislation. Against eight Member States this procedure has been completed. Since none of these eight have agreed to comply with the Commission’s findings, the Commission has taken these Member States to the Court of Justice.

The issue is now in the hands of the Court and the Commission cannot make any further statements while this issue is pending. The honourable Member can be assured however, that as long as there is no common position and perspective of a mandate for an agreement with the United States, the Commission has no intention to stop this procedure.

Is it the Commission’s intention to propose a legislative framework governing the adventitious presence of GMOs in non-GMO seed?

If so, when will such proposals be published?

The Commission intends to establish conditions concerning the adventitious presence of genetically modified seeds in seed lots of traditional plant varieties.

These conditions will be laid down in a Commission Directive amending the Annexes to various Council Directives on the marketing of seeds⁽¹⁾ 1.

This intention was already signalled by the Commission in its White Paper on Food Safety, under number 77 of the action plan in the annex thereto.

The timing envisaged for the adoption of the Act is December 2000.

Information that genetically modified cotton seed may be in use in Greece has caused particular concern. In addition to the environmental repercussions and the tarnishing of the reputation of Greek cotton, there are also question marks over the fate of farmers who are at risk of losing their income from cotton-growing through no fault of their own, while the inspection agencies and the seed importers are not called to account.

What measures will the Commission take to guarantee producers’ incomes and make the responsible agencies and their inspections effective, defining the characteristic features of genetically modified seeds and the methods of investigation in order to eliminate any suspicion of such practices and to protect the environment, consumers and farmers from the irresponsibility of the companies which are exploiting the lack of inspection?

No genetically modified cotton varieties have as yet received authorisation for the placing on the market in the community under Part C of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Two applications, concerning the placing on the market of insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant cotton, are currently pending approval in the authorisation procedure under the Directive.

Under current Community law, the placing on the market, including the import, of seeds consisting of, or containing genetically modified material which has not been authorised in the Community under Council Directive 90/220/EEC or under equivalent product specific Community provisions is prohibited. This applies also to seed lots of conventional varieties that contain impurities of unauthorised genetically modified material.

As indicated in position 77 of the Annex to the Commission’s White Paper on Food Safety, the Commission has the intention to adopt, under the existing Community seed legislation, standards for purity concerning the adventitious presence of genetically modified seeds authorised in the Community as well as specific labelling requirements for seeds in respect of genetically modified material. This would ensure that these standards and labelling requirements are integrated in the official seed certification procedure established for seeds produced in the Community in Directive 69/208/EEC for cotton. The same measures would also be included in the seed equivalence regime governing the requirements for seeds imported into the Community as established on the basis of the same Directive for cotton.

Until then, the competent authorities of the Member States, under their general obligation to monitor compliance with Community law, have to assess the risk of the possible presence of unauthorised genetically modified material and, in case of suspicion, to carry out appropriate testing and follow-up action.

Member States can, in addition to the mandatory checks required under the relevant Community provisions, unilaterally include any other checks for compliance with Community law in the procedures applicable to imports from third countries and take the appropriate action in case of findings confirming non-compliance with Community law.

Is the Commission aware that BP has recently acquired a minority stake in PetroChina, that PetroChina is the Chinese Communist Party’s enterprise which is currently engaged in plundering the natural resources of occupied Tibet and that this plundering contravenes international law which forbids the exploitation of an occupied territory’s natural resources? Will the Commission therefore make it clear to BP that their involvement in PetroChina is wholly unacceptable and urge them to use their stake in PetroChina to stop this exploitation forthwith?

The Commission is committed to the preservation of the cultural, linguistic, and religious identity of the autonomous region of Tibet. This issue has been consistently raised within the Union-China human rights dialogue as well as in the framework of our political dialogue with Beijing. The Commission also endeavours to promote sustainable development through its cooperation programme with China, and maintains a dialogue with China on global environmental objectives, in particularly biodiversity.

The Commission is aware of media reports that BP Amoco has announced that it would take a 20% share in the initial public offering of PetroChina. The Commission is also aware of concerns which have been expressed about the effect on Tibet’s environment of PetroChina’s activity there. However, the Commission has no means and no competence to influence investment decisions by individual European companies.

European Voice No. 25 of 30 May 2000 states that ‘although the relatively small annual allocation’ to the Fifth Action Programme for Gender Equality ‘is the same as for the previous five-year period, Commission officials fear even this may be too much for Commissioners increasingly reluctant to fund sex equality projects.’

To fulfil the EU’s obligation to combat gender-based discrimination, we need not a decrease, but a substantial increase in the funding of both mainstreaming and specific anti-discrimination measures.

Is it true that the Commission is considering a reduction of funding to this 20-year-old women’s equality programme?

In her question, the honourable Member is referring to both the Commission’s Communication towards a Gender Equality Framework Strategy and to the relevant proposed supporting Programme adopted by the Commission on 7 June, which constitute the Community’s approach to gender equality for the future (2001-2005).

With regard to the Framework Strategy, the aim is to co-ordinate all the different initiatives and programmes that are funded through different specific budget headings under a single umbrella. In this way, the profile of the wide range of existing Community activities for the promotion of gender equality will be raised, their global consistency will be ensured and their results optimised and made visible inside and outside the Community.

As for the supporting programme, it will be financed under budget heading B3-4012 and will cover horizontal and co-ordinating actions that are necessary for implementing successfully the Framework Strategy. Such actions will include networking, awareness raising, analysis and assessment tools, monitoring, reporting and evaluation.

The Commission would, once again, reiterate its commitment in pursuing the promotion of gender equality either by adjusting its policies (gender mainstreaming) and/or by implementing concrete actions designed to improve the situation of women in society (specific actions).

It would, moreover, assure the honourable Member that the necessary budgetary support will be made available in order to fulfil the obligations arising from the Treaty.

Speaking before the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 26 May, the Ombudsman publicly complained about the problems he had encountered in accessing documents concerning the Thessaloniki underground. In particular he said that he could not give any assurances to the European Parliament and the citizens of Europe that the investigation he was conducting would reveal the truth, given that the five oral depositions he had taken from the officials involved in the affair had clearly been made in the name - and at the prompting - of the administration and that the officials were bound by the obligation of professional secrecy.

Why is the Ombudsman’s work being impeded, and why is it not cooperating with him to shed light on the first complaint? Are Commission officials who refuse to speak above the laws and the Treaties, and what lies behind the ‘orchestrated’ depositions of the Commission officials, given that their conduct suggests that there has been an intervention in defiance of Community laws? Does the President of the Commission intend to take measures to ensure access to all the relevant documents, to hold a hearing of the Commissioners and to allow depositions to be taken from officials without any restrictions so that the Ombudsman can complete his investigations unimpeded into the complaint that has been made on the basis of Article 195 (formerly 138e) of the EC Treaty?

What stage has the investigation into the second complaint by the Commission reached, and what is the amount of funding proposed for the Thessaloniki underground under the third CSF for Greece?

The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that contrary to his allegations, the Commission and its officials have cooperated fully with the ombudsman in his examination of the complaint on the Thessaloniki metro case.

The officials did in fact extensively reply to all the questions put to them by the Ombudsman and his services and provided access to all documents in their files, after receiving the necessary authorisations by the third parties and Member States concerned, in full compliance with the rules currently in force and applicable in such cases. The officials concerned, far from reacting in a manner dismissive of their obligations under the Treaty and relevant secondary legislation, have indeed acted in a strict observance of the rules imposed on them. This fact is expressly acknowledged by the Ombudsman himself in the note he presented to the Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs held in Brussels on the 24 and 25 May 2000.

The Commission would also like to note that the comments made by the honourable Member do not seem to reflect accurately the opinion expressed by the Ombudsman himself on this case and on the Commission services collaboration with him and his services. It is also significant in this respect that he considers that he will be able to complete his examination of this case in a satisfactory manner.

As regards the requested involvement of the Commission’s President in this case, the Commission wishes to assure the honourable Member that, as was the case to date, the President of the Commission will contribute so as Article 3.2 of the Ombudsman Statute continues to be fully complied with by the Commission services as set out below:

- the Community institutions and bodies shall be obliged to supply the Ombudsman with any information he has requested of them and give him access to the files concerned. They may refuse only on duly substantiated grounds of secrecy;

- officials and other servants of Community institutions and bodies must testify at the request of the Ombudsman. However, under this provision, a member of the Commission may not be obliged to testify.

The Commission would also like to inform the honourable Member that its services have finalised the examination of the second complaint on this case and is actually considering the next steps to be taken. As regards the Hellenic authorities request that the project of the Thessaloniki metro be cofinanced by Community support framework (csf) 3, it is currently under consideration by the Commission. The amount requested is approximately EUR 128 million.

Far too small a proportion of plastic waste is recovered or recycled in Western Europe. Out of the total of 30 m tonnes of plastic contained in articles manufactured in 1998, only one tonne was recycled, and 4.3 million tonnes of the plastic waste collected was burnt. The Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME) and the Member States with the lowest recovery/recycling rates argue that the optimum recovery rate has now been achieved for plastic packaging and that increased recovery will not yield either commercial or environmental benefits. Yet purchasers of plastics take the view that demand for recovered plastic has risen, so that it is now in short supply. From a lifecycle perspective, is it better that plastic waste be reused as a material or used as an energy source?

What does the Commission plan to do to boost the recovery of plastic waste? Will it take steps to ensure that plastic waste is primarily reused as a material rather than used as an energy source?

The Commission agrees that the material recycling of plastic waste is a problem which has not yet found satisfactory solutions within the Community. There are several reasons for this situation, among them the number of different types of plastic and the cost of recycling.

The Community Waste Management Strategy of 1996 provides, in principle, for a preference to material recycling with regard to the incineration of waste with energy recovery, where environmentally sound. The Commission sees no reason not to apply this general approach to plastic waste. The incineration of plastic waste has a number of disadvantages which must be taken into consideration, such as emissions, residuals from the incineration process, the necessity to construct incinerators and to provide a continuous flow of waste inputs over a long period of time (20 to 30 years).

While the Commission therefore does not see a need to change its strategy on waste management, which generally gives preference to material recycling, it does not intend, at this stage, to take specific legislative measures regarding the material recycling of plastic waste. Indeed, it is up to the markets to develop techniques for material recycling and to make them environmentally and economically viable. However the Commission is examining very carefully the results of the Recycling Forum⁽¹⁾1 where all concerned contributed to the formulation of recommendations on technical and market aspects and also on possible legal and voluntary initiatives.