Following the confirmation on 30 April last by the Government of Benin and the UN’s Children’s Fund that the suspected slave ship that docked in Cotonou earlier in the month was in fact used for child trafficking, will the Council state how it has responded to the subsequent appeal to the international community for assistance in tackling the problem of child trafficking, which it calls ‘a product of poverty and underdevelopment’?

The Council would refer the honourable Member to the joint reply given by the Council during the part-session in May 2001, as part of the same exercise, to Oral Questions H-396/01 and H-431/01 concerning, respectively, the vessel Etireno and trafficking in children in Africa. That reply refers to the measures taken at European Union level to combat the particularly odious crime of child trafficking.

It should be noted, in particular, that the Council is currently examining two proposals of 15January2001 [COM(2000) 854 final] contained in the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament, one of which concerns combating trafficking in human beings, and the other combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography 1. The explanatory memoranda to the proposals mention the measures already taken by the Council in this area.

Will the Council outline its position on the supply and demand for protein-rich crops in the EU following the BSE crisis, taking into account the working paper on this issue which the Commission was due to present to the Special Committee on Agriculture at its meeting of 7 May 2001?

Following the BSE crisis and consequently, because of the ban on animal protein products for the use in animal feedingstuffs, the Council, on the basis of an analysis and a proposal by the Commission has, as a first step, adopted a regulation amending the support system for producers of certain arable crops. This regulation, which in itself does not pretend to fill the gap as far as the need of replacement of animal proteins by vegetable proteins is concerned, provides the possibility for organic farmers to produce certain protein rich crops on set-aside land.

Furthermore, the Commission has presented to the Council and the European Parliament a Communication and a Working Paper with options to promote the cultivation of plant proteins within the European Union. This Communication has been examined by the different bodies within the Council and, so far, has not lead to definitive conclusions.

Given the considerable hardships facing the tourism industry in the EU, including Ireland, following the foot-and-mouth crisis, will the Council, as a matter of urgency and exceptionally, call on the Commission to examine ways of supporting the industry until such time as there are clear signs of a sustainable recovery in the tourism sector?

First of all, let me say that I share the Honourable Member's concern for the tourism industry in the various parts of the Community suffering considerable adverse effects as a consequence of the foot-and-mouth crisis. Support measures have been targeted solely at the agricultural sector. Non-agricultural sectors, such as tourism, are not therefore covered by these measures.

The Council has not discussed the question of mandating the Commission to look into the matter. Compensating the tourism industry for the consequences of foot-and-mouth disease must first and foremost be a matter for the individual Member States. In addition, account should of course be taken of the fact that support for individual businesses contravenes EC rules on State aid, with the exception of aid approved by the Commission.

What stage has been reached in the negotiations on enlargement with regard to Justice and Home Affairs, and on what other issues in this area does the Council Presidency plan to concentrate?

The European Union began negotiations on Chapter 24, Cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs, with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia during the Portuguese Presidency. Revised positions from the EU are in the process of being drawn up for these countries on the basis of the further information provided by them.

The European Union is now working on negotiating positions from Malta, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria and expects to agree upon common positions for every one of these applicant countries during the Swedish Presidency with the aim of opening the negotiating chapters. Negotiations are not planned with Romania at this stage.

According to the ‘road map’ covering the period of 1 January 2001 to 1 July 2002, the EU should, in the course of the Belgian Presidency during the second half of 2001, establish its position on this chapter in order, on a preliminary basis, to conclude the chapter with those applicant countries which have achieved the most.

The European Union’s negotiations with each applicant country will be based upon the EU’s regulations in this area, which include the Schengen acquis incorporated into the Treaties.

A programme covering a number of presidencies and concerning external relations within the Justice and Home Affairs area is in the process of being drawn up for the coordination and inspection activity to be undertaken during the Swedish, Belgian and Spanish Presidencies. This programme, the first of its kind, states that the Belgian priorities during the second half of 2001 will include the fight against trafficking in human beings, human rights, the rights of minorities and the fight against corruption.

According to the German newspaper ‘Die Tageszeitung’, the CIA, the French and German intelligence services and NATO had been aware since 17 June 1995 that General Perisic was in charge of coordination from Belgrade of the preparations for the attack on the Srebrenica enclave which fell into the hands of the Serb forces on 11 July 1995. It is also claimed that NATO Member States’ intelligence services have compiled evidence on film of mass executions carried out by Serb forces after they had taken Srebrenica. Furthermore, several sources claim that, at a meeting of the Security Council, General Janvier, Commander of the UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, said that missions which endangered UNPROFOR troops, such as those in the enclaves in eastern Bosnia, should be abandoned. It is also claimed that, on five separate occasions, he refused to authorise the air strikes requested by the Dutch Unit because, inter alia, he wanted to get rid of that enclave.

Can the Council get right to the bottom of the role played by the Member States of the Union in this affair? Can it also provide total confirmation that the evidence held by the Member States has actually been forwarded to the ICC? If so, can it explain why General Perisic has still not been indicted by the ICC, despite his responsibility for organising and planning the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Serb forces in Srebrenica?

The tragedy of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre is a matter for the UN and for the countries involved in UNPROFOR. Although EU Member States were of course involved, the European Union as such had no role in the matter. The Honourable Member should therefore address any concerns about Srebrenica to the UN Secretary-General, who has already issued his comprehensive and detailed "Srebrenica Report" pursuant to UNGA resolution 53/35 (1998), or to the governments of the countries concerned.

Moreover, it cannot be the role of the European Union to provide information on why certain individuals have or have not been indicted for war crimes or crimes against humanity in connection with the horrible events in Srebrenica. The Honourable Member should therefore address such concerns to the relevant national authorities, or to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY.

According to reports published in the Cypriot and Greek press, the Turkish government has sent a memorandum to all Member States of the European Union except Greece, stating inter alia that accession by Cyprus to the European Union before a solution had been found to the Cyprus problem would lead to the annexation by Turkey of the parts of Cyprus it occupied; this is a threat aimed at the European Union itself, is intended to intimidate the Republic of Cyprus, complicates the process of enlarging the European Union and constitutes a disavowal of the Helsinki Agreement and the EU-Turkey Association relations. These moves by Turkey assume the nature of blackmail as they are linked with threats to send the vessel 'Piri Reis' into the area of the Greek continental shelf.

In addition to the unacceptable fact that Greece was the only EU country not to receive this letter, how does the Council intend to condemn the content of this letter which is in obvious breach of the principles and resolutions of the UN, the Helsinki Agreement and the Association Agreement, and if Turkey persists in these intentions does it intend to examine the possibility of using the powers provided for under the Association Agreement?

Turkey, which is provoking a crisis through continued acts of provocation which are tolerated by the EU, has now forwarded a four-page government communication to the governments of the EU Member States (except for Greece) warning that the accession of Cyprus to the EU before the Cypriot question is resolved will lead to annexation by Turkey of the occupied territories, neutralise efforts made to resolve the Cypriot question and lead to a crisis. In this way, the Turkish Government is endeavouring to undermine the territorial sovereignty of Greece. A number of reports have now appeared to the effect that the Turkish Government has informed the Greek authorities that one of its ships, the 'Piri Reis' will approach the Greek mainland on 4 June 2001 for research purposes.

In view of this, what position will the Council adopt in response to Turkish threats and what measures will it take to ensure that Turkey complies with the relevant UN decisions, international law and the principles established by the Council of Europe?

Turkey is well aware of the EU position regarding the Cyprus issue, as it has been expressed on several occasions, i.e. by the European Council in Helsinki and in Nice, in the Accession Partnership for Turkey under the title "Enhanced Political Dialogue and Political Criteria" and during the political dialogue meetings with Turkey. The EU strongly supports the UN Secretary General's efforts to achieve an overall agreement on the Cyprus problem consistent with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and to arrive at a positive conclusion of the process initiated in December 1999. It has appealed to Turkey and all parties concerned to contribute to this effect.

The Council informs the Honourable Member that in the case referred to in his question, since the letter was not sent to all Member States, the Council decided that there should be no common reply.

Nevertheless, on all occasions when the Cyprus issue comes up the EU reaffirms its position.

As the Council may know, France is refusing to extradite James Kopp, the suspect in a high profile federal murder case in the United States, until the US assures French authorities that it will not pursue the death penalty. French law prohibits the extradition of individuals who could face capital punishment as a result, as does Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. How many other EU Member States currently have such a policy? Can it accurately be said that no person may be legally extradited from the EU to face the possible imposition of a death sentence?

The Member States of the European Union have all signed and ratified Protocol No 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty.

A Member State would not be fulfilling its obligations if were to extradite a person to a third State where that person might be sentenced to the death penalty, unless the Member State had first sought sufficient assurances from the third State concerned that the death penalty would not be imposed on the person in question or that, if imposed, it would not be enforced.

Declaration No 1 attached to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam refers to the content of Protocol No 6 and notes that "since the signature of the above-mentioned Protocol on 28 April 1983, the death penalty has been abolished in most of the Member States of the Union and has not been applied in any of them".

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the way in which a Member State applies its extradition agreements with third States in the light of its obligations ensuing from Protocol No 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the way in which it assesses the assurances given by third States regarding their enforcement of the death penalty, is a matter of the State's own responsibility and competence.

A 'secret' pact was recently signed in Prizren in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia between the ethnic Albanian political leaders and the head of the Albanian independence movement with the mediation of the US envoy to the OSCE, R. Fruik. It appears that the EU and its High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Mr Javier Solana, are seeking to decline all responsibility for this development and are clearly working on 'new' initiatives and 'new' agreements without however taking the obvious step of calling on the leaders of the Albanian parties to withdraw from the above agreement. Instead, according to reliable sources, Mr Solana is involved in the drawing up of a new agreement which will effectively mean that the demands of the Albanian autonomists will once more be submitted in modified form for negotiation within the controversial political dialogue. This has clearly given further encouragement to the leaders of the Albanian parties who openly regard themselves as the political leaders of the Albanian autonomist movement.

What view does the Council take of the failure of all its previous moves to defuse the crisis? Does it intend to take steps to end the actions of the Albanian autonomists, which are threatening the very existence of FYROM, if so what action will it take?

The ‘Prizren document’ mentioned in the question by the honourable Member and signed by elected Albanian leaders and Albanian extremist groups was the result of contacts between the OSCE’s envoy to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Ambassador Frowick, and Albanian extremist leaders. Ambassador Frowick’s initiative was not coordinated with the EU and NATO.

As the honourable Member is surely aware, the ‘Prizren document’ has undermined the recently formed government of national unity which includes both Slavic and Albanian democratically elected leaders.

As a result of this worrying development, Secretary-General/High Representative Solana visited Skopje again on 28 May and, following difficult and very sensitive discussions, convinced the leaders of the largest parties represented in Parliament to agree upon a common statement in which they undertake to continue to work together in the government of national unity, to speed up the legislative work on those measures agreed upon and to achieve significant progress with President Trajkovski’s programme for solving problems between the ethnic groups.

Unfortunately, the situation on the ground is still very tense as a result of armed conflicts and ethnically motivated incidents that have recently occurred in Bitola. Mr Solana visited FYROM again on 8 and 9 June, which resulted in an agreement within the governing coalition to increase efforts to achieve rapid results concerning reforms that have been needed for a long time, particularly when it comes to the rights of minorities, an area that is important for long-term stability in the country.

The number of deaths in Turkish prison cells is continuously increasing, including 23 of the hunger strikers whose action has lasted for over 200 days in protest at their conditions of detention and as a means of expressing support for democracy. In addition there are those who have died through self-immolation and members of the prisoners' family who are helping from outside the prisons, bringing the total number of those 'murdered' in the struggle for democratic rights and freedoms to 54. The EU has upheld the position of the Turkish government and called on the prisoners to cease their hunger strike with a view to resolving the problem.

It is shameful that the international community should remain inactive in the face of the tragic situation affecting those imprisoned for their ideas and their efforts to defend democracy. In view of this, what pressure will the Council bring to bear on Turkey with a view to securing the release of the thousands of political prisoners being held in a country which claims to be democratic and has been described as such by the European Union?

The Council deeply regrets that the hunger strikes in Turkey are still leading to loss of life and urges all those directly involved to act in such a way that this humanitarian tragedy is stopped. The Council and the Member States have raised the matter with the Turkish Government and will continue to do so in the context of the enhanced political dialogue, the next occasion being the meeting of the EC-Turkey Association Council on 26 June. In addition, the Council and Member States are using their contacts with Turkish partners, including the Turkish Ministers of the Interior and of Justice, in Ankara and elsewhere to make their concerns about the hunger strikes clear.

The Council notes that the Turkish Government already at an early stage chose to cooperate with the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture, which has so far made four visits to Turkey in connection with the hunger strikes. Changes in the law have come into force or will shortly do so, including some aiming to reduce the isolation of prisoners. The Council urges the Turkish Government to implement the new laws speedily and in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Taking this into consideration, the Council hopes that the hunger strikers and their families will, for their parts, reconsider their actions.

The Council recalls that the Accession Partnership for Turkey, adopted by the Council on 8 March 2001, includes prison reform as a medium-term priority.

The Council also welcomes the recent visit to Ankara by members of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee which focussed on this issue.

If anyone was still harbouring the illusion that there was any life left in the 'mixed economy' and the 'European social model', the brutal cynicism evinced by the announcement of closures by Danone and Marks & Spencers leave no doubt about the fact that those ideas have had their day.

Company restructuring was understandable in the context of undertakings facing real economic problems. It is, however, utterly unacceptable on the part of healthy, wealthy undertakings who 'restructure' purely and simply in pursuit of increased capital gains.

Our governments have reacted decisively to the agricultural crises; wilful, savage action in the name of profits, resulting in the destruction of whole families – ought to elicit an equally decisive response – not least because if it does not, such action will snowball.

What are you going to do?

As the Honourable Member will recall, his written question P-1207/01 was identical to this oral question and was replied to on 5th June:

The Commission’s response naturally remains the same. To save the time of the House I will not go through the lengthy reply in detail.

As the Honourable Member knows the Commission attaches great importance to the social consequences of corporate restructuring.

Since the relevant European Directives on labour law and industrial relations have been transposed into national law, the decisions about whether infringements have taken place clearly rest with national administrative or judicial authorities.

Against that background, the Commission has repeatedly emphasised its view that corporate restructuring should be undertaken with a sense of responsibility to employees and has consequently underlined the need for employees' information and consultation rights to be strengthened.

The Honourable Member will share the pleasure of the Commission at the decision of the Council yesterday to adopt legislation which requires that employees in companies of at least 50 workers will have basic rights to be provided with information about recent and forthcoming developments in company activity, and about the company's economic and financial situation; basic rights of information and consultation on employment issues and on decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation; and basic rights of information about the way in which a company proposes to handle those changes.

Next month, the Commission intends to present a Green Paper on corporate social responsibility emphasising the need for the interests and concerns of all stakeholders who are affected by changes and decisions to receive balanced consideration.

In addition, in its Social Policy Agenda, the Commission proposed the creation of an observatory on change which is being developed by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The Honourable Member will be familiar with the details of this activity.

As the Honourable Member recognises in his question, corporate restructuring is part of commercial evolution and can contribute to increased competitiveness, economic growth, expanded employment and the capacity to manage change successfully. The Commission seeks to contribute positively to such developments by emphasising the advantages of legal provisions to provide justified safeguards, and of levels of social responsibility which are characteristic of good modern corporate management.

The Official Journal of the European Communities of 11 April 2001, ref. C 110A, published a notice of open competition COM/A/6/01 to constitute a reserve of administrators in the fields of external relations (reserve of 80 people) and management aid to non-member countries (reserve of 170 people). The conditions for eligibility (Paragraph III (B) (1)) impose an age limit: ‘You must have been born after 25 May 1955’. This condition is not consistent with Directive 2000/78/EC⁽¹⁾, which expressly opposes this form of discrimination. The European Institutions should be the first to observe the rules they impose on the Member States, not only to set an example, but also for the sake of their own credibility.

Why has the Commission ignored this directive? What does it plan to do in this regard in future in its own area of competence? In view of the conflict with Directive 2000/78/EC, will candidates who were born before 25 May 1955 be able nonetheless to put in a valid application for this competition?

As the Honourable Member would expect, the Commission is fully aware of the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/CE of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation⁽²⁾ 1.

The legislation was not, of course, imposed on Member States as inferred by the Honourable Member’s question. Like all other Community legislation it was enacted by the Member States in Council and by this House.

According to Article 18 of the Directive, Member States have until 2 December 2003 to adopt the legal and administrative measures necessary for its implementation. If necessary, they may even have an additional period of 3 years from 2 December 2003 to implement the provisions of this Directive relating to age and disability discrimination.

As the Honourable Member will have noted, the Directive aims to establish a general principle of prohibition of any direct or indirect discrimination based, inter alia, on age. In Article 6, however, it also provides for a number of situations in which the use of age limits could legally be justified. For instance, the Directive identifies the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question, and it also allows for a reasonable period of employment before retirement.

The Directive has no direct effect on Community Law and on Staff Regulations. Despite that, in January 1998 the Commission agreed to the principle of abandoning age limits on recruitment and also expressed the view that a co-ordinated approach amongst all the European Institutions was needed. In addition the Commission adopted the interim policy of introducing a higher age limit of 45 years, instead of 35 years, for competitions for recruitment at basic grades.

As the House will know, the Commission is in the process of reforming its administrative practices and has specifically reaffirmed its commitment to abandoning age limits for open competitions. This measure is due to come into force after the current consultations and negotiations with staff representatives are completed and the Commission has adopted a finalised policy.

As that change comes nearer, the Commission hopes that similar arrangements will be adopted and employed by all of the Institutions. It is sure that many Members of this House will share that hope.

The Turkish National Programme for the adoption of the acquis communautaire states in reference to the Cyprus issue that a settlement will be based on the sovereign equality of the two sides and on the reality of the situation on the island, and, in reference to the disputes between Greece and Turkey, that Turkey will continue to take initiatives and endeavour to resolve bilateral problems with Greece through dialogue. Since the terms ‘sovereign equality’ and ‘reality of the situation on the island’ are totally contrary to Articles 9a and 9b of the Helsinki Council conclusions and to Articles 3 and 4(1) of the Council Decision of 8 March 2001 on the EU-Turkey partnership agreement, and given that the position on disputes between Greece and Turkey makes no mention of ‘peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the UN Charter’ or of ‘bringing the dispute to the International Court of Justice within a reasonable time’, as set out in Article 4 of Helsinki and Articles 3 and 4(2) of the partnership agreement, will the Commission ask Turkey to incorporate in the Turkish National Programme the decisions contained in the Helsinki conclusions, the partnership agreement and the relevant European Parliament resolutions with a view to approving the Programme?

The Union's position on both the Cyprus issue and on peaceful settlement of border dispute is established in the Helsinki European Council conclusions. The same conclusions indicate that these matters are part of the enhanced political dialogue. This position is reconfirmed in the Accession Partnership for Turkey as adopted by the Council on 8 March 2001⁽¹⁾ 1. Under the Swedish Presidency, both subjects have been part of such a dialogue at two different occasions. These questions will be further discussed at the Association Council meeting of 26 June 2001.

On the basis of the outcome of these meetings and other contacts, the Commission will make its assessment of the relevant developments in the Regular Report 2001 for Turkey, including Turkey's National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis.

Further to the Commission's reply to questions H-0157/01 and H-0221/01⁽¹⁾ on the opening of a Delegation in Riyadh, can the Commission explain why three years after it included Saudi Arabia on its list of priorities for opening new Delegations it is still not in a position to announce a date for doing so? Is the Commission aware of the disquiet its inaction has created in the Gulf Cooperation States?

The Commission is aware of the importance of opening a Delegation in Riyadth.

In 1998 the Commission included Saudi Arabia in its list of political priorities for the opening of new Delegations and Offices.

The lack of sufficient resources - financial and human - did not permit the opening.

The Commission is preparing a communication on the evolution of the External Service to be presented in June/July 2001. In this context the possibility to open a Delegation in Riyadth will be reconsidered.

The SENSUS Project, a successor to Aventinus, is trying to develop an information exchange programme for European police and intelligence services. SENSUS is subsidised by the Commission. Coordination is the responsibility of Stephan Bodenkamp. A judgment handed down by a Munich court on 20 December 2000 shows that Stephan Bodenkamp’s real name is Christoph Klonowski and that he works for the German State Security Service. He was found guilty of forging a document in connection with the SENSUS Project.

Why has the Commission taken no legal or other steps to clarify the situation, despite the information it has received on several occasions about the working methods of Stephan Bodenkamp, aka Christoph Klonowski, including a transcript of the Munich court’s judgment? Will the Commission now take all possible steps, including legal action, to clarify the situation?

As the honourable Member will know, SENSUS is a Telematic Applications Programme project under the 4th Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programme. It addresses the language processing needs of law enforcement agencies and security services by providing content analysis tools that give faster and better understanding of incoming texts in a foreign language. The project focuses on illegal immigration and drug smuggling as potential application areas.

As in the case of all shared-cost research projects, the Commission has a responsibility to ensure the correct use of Community funds for the execution of the tasks and delivery of results foreseen in the contract.

In common with all other projects, the progress of SENSUS has been closely monitored. The responsible Commission officials and independent external experts who undertook detailed reviews of the project on several occasions have been satisfied with the project results to date and with the project’s technical management by AfA.

The Commission took note of the judgement against Mr Bodenkamp but, as the honourable Member will understand, the Institution does not comment on a judgement by a Court.

At the request of the member of the Commission responsible for the Information Society, the Information Society Directorate General of the Commission has initiated an internal review of the management of the SENSUS project, in order to assess whether further action may be necessary. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely and emphasises that it will take legal action if this is appropriate to protect Community interests.

In answer to written question E-3765/00 of 19 February 2001 on breaches of Directive 91/628/EEC⁽¹⁾ on the transport of live animals over long distances, the Commission, in the person of Commissioner Byrne, stated that the Commission had 'opened infringement proceedings against some Member States in relation to their failure to implement Community legislation in this field'.

What countries have been declared by the Commission to be in breach of the above directive? When were letters of notification sent to the Member States concerned? Have answers been received by the Commission from some or all such Member States? If not, have legally binding deadlines been missed by one or more Member States? If so, will the Commission provide transcripts of the correspondence?

The Commission has actually opened infringement procedures against three Member States in respect of failure to comply with obligations under Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Directive 95/29/EC.

The Member States concerned are Greece – Letter of formal notice dispatched on 9/11/1999; Belgium – Letter of formal notice dispatched on 6/3/2000 and Spain – Letter of formal notice dispatched on 22/1/1999.

All these Member States replied to the Commission’s letter of formal notice. In each case the replies indicated that legislative or administrative action had been taken in order to correct the deficiencies of implementation alleged by the Commission.

However, the Commission's experience of enforcement of animal welfare legislation shows that it is necessary to look not only at the legislative and administrative situation existing in the Member States but also at the situation on the ground.

For this reason animal welfare infringement files are normally kept open even when a Member State asserts that the deficiencies alleged have been corrected until the situation on the ground can be verified by a further inspection mission of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO).

In the case of Belgium and Greece, FVO missions in the year 2000 indicated a still unsatisfactory situation in relation to enforcement of the respect of certain aspects of the Directive. Furthermore, as regards Belgium complaints by an animal welfare organisation, which appear to be well-founded, of serious breaches of the Directive in relation to animals transported to livestock markets were received at the end of 2000 and early in 2001. The Commission is in consequence preparing supplementary action to take account of these recent developments.

In respect of Spain, the Commission has decided to dispatch a reasoned opinion to that Member State.

Appropriate action in relation to several other Member States in relation to the Directive is currently also being considered.

In relation to the Honourable Member’s request for copies of correspondence passing between the Commission and Member States relating to these infringements of animal welfare legislation the Commission cannot supply such copies on the basis that in order that the Article 226 of the EC Treaty procedure should function in accordance with the intentions of the authors of the Treaty, confidentiality is required particularly concerning written communications passing between the parties during the early administrative or pre-judicial stage of the procedure. This position is based on Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, EURATOM⁽²⁾ 1, on public access to Commission documents and on the code of conduct annexed to that decision. The grounds on which the code foresees exceptions to the right of access include situations “where disclosure could undermine: The protection of the public interest (…., court proceedings, inspections and investigations)". The Court of first instance has confirmed in several decisions that Member States are entitled to expect confidentiality from the Commission in relation to the inspection and investigation stages of the Article 169 procedure⁽³⁾ 1.

I refer to previous questions concerning Scottish West Coast Ferries (E-0999/00⁽¹⁾, P-1803/00, H­0699/00⁽²⁾, P-3234/00, and E-3243/00).

It has become clear that any tendering process may result in the take-over of routes by an operator who would subsequently enjoy effective monopoly control of routes on the west of Scotland.

In the event of a failure by such an operator, no backup service with adequate safety capability or legally required safety certification would be in existence or available without wholly unreasonably delay.

Does the Commission acknowledge that implementation of the 1992 regulations may have disastrous effects if it enforces privatisation of the present public ferry operation, and will the Commission therefore urgently consider amending its guidelines to facilitate a reasonable and acceptable system of lifeline ferry provision in Scotland, based on a publicly owned ferry company that is subject to the standard rules on public procurement?

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission has for some time been in discussion with the Scottish authorities about bringing the services currently operated by Caledonian MacBrayne into conformity with Community law, in particular Council Regulation 3577/92 of 7 December 1992⁽³⁾ 1 on the freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States and the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport⁽⁴⁾ 2.

The Commission is aware that the strong preference of the Scottish Executive is to tender the network as a whole, with the creation of a publicly-owned vessel owning company leasing the vessels to the successful bidder on a commercial basis. It is also proposed that the vessel-owning company would act as “an operator of last resort”⁽⁵⁾ 3, which would appear designed to address precisely the concern of the Honourable Member that an emergency backup service be available for the lifeline routes in the event that the selected operator should fail.

Since Article 295 of the Treaty establishes both the principle of impartiality with regard to the system of property ownership and the principle of equality between public and private undertakings, secondary legislation such as Council Regulation 3577/92 cannot enforce the privatisation of the existing public ferry operation. The objectives of the Commission are to uphold the principle of non-discrimination between Community shipowners as well as ensuring that any state aid required is proportionate to the objective of providing the necessary level of public service. These objectives will remain the guiding principles underlying the revision of the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport currently foreseen for next year.

The Norway lobster trawler fleet is systematically making additional catches of illegal sizes of hake. The nets used by these vessels do not filter out such catches, and the distribution areas of Norway lobster and hake fry overlap considerably.

What mechanisms have been prepared to prevent additional catches of hake fry by the Norway lobster fleet?

The Commission agrees that vessels targeting Norway lobsters (langoustines) take hake as an unavoidable by-catch since these species inhabit the same geographical areas.

It will be prohibited to fish in a part of the areas in which these species coexist unless trawls of mesh size at least 100mm are used. This will partially protect the smaller hake but will make it much more difficult to retain the Norway lobsters.

In principle, and on purely biological grounds, it would be preferable to define the area in which 100mm should be used as the whole of the area co-inhabited by hake and Norway lobsters.

However, if this is done, there will be considerable loss of fishing opportunities based on Norway lobster for at least two Member States (France, Ireland). Therefore, a part of the area co-inhabited has not been closed.

Observers will be on board vessels, including those fishing for Norway lobster, operating within the areas which might otherwise have been closed. The results of their observations will be used by the Commission in reconsidering the extent of the controlled area in future.

Apart from the controlled area, the requirement for all trawls to be made of thinner twine and the installation of large-meshed panels into beam trawlers should improve selectivity of fishing gears for hake and will thereby reduce the quantities of small hake caught.

At present, scientific knowledge on how to further improve selectivity for hake is somewhat deficient.

For the future, the Commission is aware of selectivity trials currently taking place in France. In addition, the Commission will encourage and is prepared to fund further experimentation on this topic. To that end, the Commission will establish a group of scientists to define the appropriate programme of work. The results of the experimentation will enable the Commission to put forward additional conditions to improve selectivity.

On how many occasions, and using what inspection means, has the Commission verified the operation and efficiency of the radiological and environmental monitoring equipment - under the provisions of Article 35 of the EURATOM Treaty – at both the Sellafield and La Hague reprocessing plants since the UK and France respectively became members of the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM)?

Since the re-launch of the verification activities in 1990 the Commission has performed verification visits at the Sellafield site on 6–10 December 1993 and at the La Hague site on 22­26 July 1996.

Each verification visit is normally performed by 4 inspectors, who carry out checks on the operation of instruments for environmental monitoring and follow the data chain for a number of randomly chosen samples from sampling through to transmission of the final results to the competent authorities. The quality assurance system is also checked.

The Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty verification activities are currently being reviewed by the Commission.

To what extent does the Commission believe it is responsible for ensuring that a single market operates in the European defence industry? Why has it never followed up on European court decisions C-70/94 and C-83/94 which ruled that a product cannot fall outside the scope of the common commercial policy on the grounds that it is of a strategic nature?

In reply to the oral question raised by the honourable Member, it can be recalled that the Commission launched its work in this field in December 1997, by adopting a Communication entitled “Implementing European Union Strategy in the field of Defence-related Industries”.

This groundbreaking document presented a comprehensive 14 points Action Plan, containing a list of areas in which it considers Union action necessary and has specified what measures should be taken to ensure progress towards a true European market for defence products. At the same time, the Council was encouraged to adopt a common position on the framing of a European defence industry.

As the honourable Member knows, there has not been as much progress as initially expected in implementing this strategy. The discussions in Council have been characterised by divergencies of opinion between the Member States. However, the analysis that was provided, advocating a need for restructuring the European defence industry and for creating a single market for defence products, is still valid. The transformation of the industrial landscape is spectacular, particularly in the aerospace and electronics sectors. Good progress is also noticeable in the land armament and naval sectors.

The defence related industry cannot remain competitive on the global stage unless allowed to fully benefit from a consolidation on the supply side and a set up of an associated Internal market. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that the Internal market operates, but it is equally important that also the Member States contribute to the process.

Some initiatives of an intergovernmental character have been developed:

A Letter of Intent was signed mid-1998 to improve co-ordination among six Member States in order to facilitate the industrial restructuring and further the functioning of the transnational companies:

The OCCAR (Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en matière d'Armement) Treaty brings the legal personality to that Joint Organisation for Armaments Co-operation involving four Member States.

With regard to the single market, progress has been achieved in the field of defence standardisation: the Commission funded a study on standardisation systems used in the defence industries in the United States and in the Union. Concluded in 1999, it delivered a set of recommendations for action leading to the possibility of formulating specifications in a common manner, thus, facilitating common-procurement policies. These recommendations are currently in development, in particular, the standardisation bodies and others stakeholders. The Commission should continue to contribute to the creation of the European defence-equipment market.

In accordance with the Commission’s Action Plan, the Commission examines this issue, in particular, with reference to the completion of the internal market in the above-mentioned domain. However, legislative proposals are not on this year’s Commission work programme.

As far as the second part of the oral question by the honourable Member is concerned, the Court of Justice, in cases C-70/94 and C-83/94, stated that dual-use goods fall within the scope of the Common Commercial Policy defined by Article 113 (now renumbered 133) of the EC Treaty.

In 1998, in accordance with these Court of Justice rulings, the Commission issued a regulation revising the existing common regime for dual-use exports controls, with Article 133 as the legal base. The Council adopted that regulation in 2000. At the same time, this constituted the completion of the Action “9a” of the 1997 Action Plan.

It has been brought to my attention by members of the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire branch of the National Farmers' Union that the number of cases of spinal cord and specified materials entering the UK, in continental imports, remains disturbingly high.

Can the Commission clarify the control measures in place, giving details of how rigorously these are being implemented? Will the Commission ensure that everything possible will be done to end this unacceptable situation as soon as possible?

The Commission has been most concerned by the numerous reports of breaches in the rules governing specified risk material (SRM) with regard to imports of beef into the United Kingdom. Removal of SRMs remains the most important measure for public health protection. Of the thirteen incidents that have come to its attention since 1 January, seven have involved German exports. In an exchange of letters with Minister Kunast during February and March, the Commission called for swift action against the offending export plants and received assurances that SRM controls had been tightened to prevent further infringements. The Commission has again been in contact with the German Chief Veterinary Officer about the latest incident discovered on 30 March.

But the issue is more global. During the April Agricultural Council the Commission re-emphasised to all Member States the importance of efficient SRM removal in the protection of Public Health. It referred to the latest Food and veterinary office (FVO) missions on the SRM controls of which preliminary reports indicate that shortcomings prevail. It should however be taken into consideration that the very reason for the Commission to ban vertebral column was the possibility for its contamination with dorsal root ganglia and remnants of spinal cord. Therefore, conclusions on the risk for human health can not be drawn solely from the outcome of import controls, it should also be assessed whether the vertebral column is properly removed at the points of sale. It is of crucial importance to receive the complete picture from the FVO mission reports. As soon as this is available the Commission will consider what action to take. But it can assure the Honourable Member that it will not take this issue lightly.

If no banknotes with a face value of Euro 1 and Euro 2 are issued – i.e. if the current decision is upheld with respect to the introduction of the single currency – and just coins are minted for the range from one cent to five euro, the result will be a flood of coins in the food industry, in the retail food industry, in the services sector and in consumers’ purses and pockets.

By what date could additional banknotes with a face value of Euro 1 and Euro 2 be printed to replace coins with a face value of Euro 1 and Euro 2?

Is any thought being given to changing the decision-making process or the body responsible at European level?

The decisions on the face values of coins were taken by the mint directors working group (MDWG) following an in-depth requirements’ analysis, which was carried out between 1991 and 1998 and formally ratified by the Council on the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 975/98 of 3 May 1998 on the denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation. The production of a Euro 5 coin was envisaged, and then ruled out when the decision was taken to produce a note of the same amount. The production of eight coins conforms to the average practice in the Member States. The existence of numerous coins in centimes is intended to facilitate the return of change.

The choice of values of notes was laid down by the European Central Bank (ECB) on the basis of preparatory work carried out by the European Monetary Institute with close consultation with the national central banks. It has never been the intention to produce Euro 1 or Euro 2 notes. Ten of the twelve participating States have no notes of such a low value.

If, when the notes and coins are in use, such a need should arise, it would fall to the Council to review the choice of denomination of coins and to the ECB to re-examine the choice of values of notes, in the event of any discussion of renewing the range.

In April 2001 Commissioner Pedro Solbes sent a letter to MEPs politely informing them of the details of the introduction of the new currency in the eurozone countries. In this letter he states that private individuals will be able to buy series of coins from the middle of December in all the countries involved, with the exception of Greece. Moreover, the Commission information leaflet entitled 'INFEURO' (No.18/Gr-2001-2) contains a summary table which shows that in Greece the maximum amount of drachmas that can be changed into euros will vary between Drs. 30 000 and 600 000 per customer, while in Austria, for example, the ceiling is double this, while in Spain there is no limit, and much the same arrangements obtain in Italy. As for the changing of banknotes and coins, Greece has set a time limit of ten and two years, respectively, while in Germany, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria there is either no time limit, or it is markedly longer than in Greece. Will the Commission say why Greece has not been provided with an advance supply of euro coins, why the ceiling for changing drachmas into euros is so low, why the period of time for changing banknotes and coins currently in circulation into euros is shorter in Greece than in most of the other countries of the eurozone?

Greece has recently decided to introduce starter kits, containing euro coins, for the public along with the other euro area Member States. It will be possible for the Greek public to purchase these kits for a face value of EUR .67, at the cost of GRD 5000, from 17 December 2001. The possibility of introducing starter kits for retailers is currently under examination.

The original information concerning the exchange of drachmae against euro has been revised. Currently the information available indicates that banks will not place any limit, for their clients, to the amount of drachmae that can be exchanged against euro. This situation is the result of a general agreement reached with banks and does not stem from any administrative decision.

As regards exchange of coins and banknotes after the end of the legal tender status, the redemption periods for banknotes and coins, in Greece, are comparable to those envisaged in several other Member States. In addition, the lengths of redemption periods for legacy coins and banknotes are a matter of subsidiarity and have been decided on individually by the Member States.

Article 21 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights states that any discrimination based on, inter alia, sexual orientation shall be prohibited in the EU.

The Commission, in the person of Romano Prodi, has undertaken to work for the practical implementation of the Charter in the Member States, proclaiming that citizens 'may count on the Commission to ensure that it is respected'. Nevertheless, and despite the European Parliament's repeated reminders of the importance of respecting fundamental rights linked to equality, the criminal law in Austria sets a higher age of consent for homosexual than for heterosexual relations.

There is also discrimination within the EU against homosexual couples wishing to exercise their right to freedom of movement without losing social security benefits when moving between Member States, as laid down in Regulation (EEC) 1408/71⁽¹⁾ and implementing Regulation (EEC) 574/72⁽²⁾, which give considerable protection to members of an individual's family, who are also entitled to accompany the head of the family when moving within the EU. The definition of family members is however a matter for national legislation, which means that couples who have made partnership ties in one Member State are not automatically regarded as lawfully wedded in another.

What action does the Commission intend to take to remove this discrimination against homosexuals in Austria and within the EU, as described above?

The honourable Member raises two issues relating to discrimination against homosexuals in the Community. First of all, she refers to the fact that, according to Austrian criminal law, the age of consent is higher for homosexual relationships than it is for heterosexual relationships.

The Commission would like to confirm its commitment to ensuring that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is respected. However, we would like to draw the honourable Member’s attention to Article 51 of that text which indicates that the provisions of the Charter are applied to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.

Austrian criminal law in this field does not come within the scope of Community law. The Commission cannot, therefore, take a position on this problem, which involves Austria’s internal legislation. For the same reason, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 21 thereof, is not applicable here.

Nevertheless, this issue can be submitted to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg when every other internal avenue of recourse has been exhausted.

The issue of non-discrimination is one to which the Union attaches considerable importance.

On November 1999, the Commission adopted a package of proposals to combat discrimination in the Community based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation⁽³⁾1 establishes a general principle of prohibition of any direct or indirect discrimination based, inter alia, on sexual orientation. Accordingly to Article 18 of the Directive, Member States have until 2 December 2003 to take the necessary measures at national level to implement the directive. (with a possibility of an additional period of 3 years where necessary to implement the provisions on disability and age discrimination).

Council Decision of 27 November 2000 establishing a Community Action Programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006) (2000/750/EC)⁽⁴⁾2 puts in practice a strategy for combating all forms of discrimination on different grounds, including sexual orientation.

Together, these measures will constitute a comprehensive basis for action to fight against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, providing a minimum level of legal rights, supported by practical action to promote the effective application of those rights on the ground.

As the Court of Justice has underlined on many occasions, Regulation 1408/71 and 574/72 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their family moving within the Community⁽⁵⁾3 do not aim to harmonise but only co-ordinate national social security systems. The definition of family members is therefore a matter for national legislation on which the benefits are provided.

Will the Commission indicate the extent to which it is aware of the work of CAMSAT, a parish/community organisation representing over 600 families in Banado Tacumba in Paraguay which has 11 years’ experience in caring for the poorest and most destitute people in this area, will it explain how expenditure of almost EUR 1 million can be justified on designing programmes and equipment when, for example, no funding has been provided for a school for children for whom no school is available or who can no longer attend school, a doctor or a dentist and only minimal funding for nutrition and meals, and will it provide information on what the EU has actually agreed with Paraguay?

Firstly, the Commission refers the honourable Member and the letter sent to him by the Commissioner Nielson in charge of Development on 16 May 2001, which included copy of the response of Commission services to Brother Eddie McArdle’s statement regarding the relationship between CAMSAT and the EU Project AMAR (*).

Secondly, it should be emphasised that the AMAR project is open to work and in collaboration with governmental and non-governmental organisations. In fact, a total of 30 activities during Phase I were carried out through partnerships with both government and NGOs. It is important to realise that AMAR is not entitled to select projects for funding. AMAR is in charge of designing and formulating the activities to be carried out, within the framework of participative community plans.

Thirdly, in addition to these explanations, and regarding the honourable Member’s specific concern about project expenditures in diagnostic studies, infrastructure and equipment, the Commission would point out that :

The Financing Agreement sets an initial planning phase with an 18-month duration. During this phase, which was finalised in the last quarter of the year 2000, a great number of activities (most of them related to diagnosis, research and designs, plus two pilot projects) were carried out for the detailed design of the project. CAMSAT has participated in workshops and has provided input to AMAR in its research in Bañado Tacumbú.

The infrastructure and equipment planned for phase II relate to improvement of existing infrastructure (schools, community centres) and not the construction of new infrastructure.

Lastly, the non governmental organisation (NGO) Network for the Rights of Children and Adolescents (CDIA), integrated by 15 NGOs, of which CAMSAT is a member, requested a meeting with AMAR on February 2001, with the purpose that AMAR explain the project. On 27 February CDIA submitted a letter to AMAR thanking the project for the meeting and expressing the support of the member organisations to the project and their willingness to collaborate in the implementation of AMAR´s proposals.

____________________

(*) Project No PRY/B7-310/96/007 “Asistencia integral a menores en situación de

alto riesgo”

Does the Commission think that, before enlargement takes place, the Community budget should be reviewed in the interests of social and political integration, with a view to furthering the current regional development and job creation policy and, additionally, the cohesion policy aimed at the new Member States?

The second report on cohesion, adopted on 31 January 2001 by the Commission, provides an answer to the question put by the honourable Member.

The decisions taken at the Berlin European Council in March 1999 remain valid for the 2000-2006 programming period. The amounts granted for structural aid to eligible regions of the current Member States were determined within the framework of those financial perspectives. The amounts granted for structural actions for the benefit of the new Member States, between their accession dates and 2006, also appear in the conclusions of the Berlin European Council. They were determined on the basis of hypothetical accession dates as well as the number of candidate countries accepted at the time of the European Council.

The second report on cohesion presents a very detailed analysis of the imperatives of the cohesion policy after enlargement. The Commission has already opened a broad debate on the content and objectives of the cohesion policy for the period following 2006, particularly at the Cohesion Forum which took place at the Parliament in Brussels on 21-22 May 2001. On this basis, the Commission will carry out the appropriate technical analyses and will present proposals at a suitable time.

Armenia possesses, at Medzamor, the only nuclear power plant in the Southern Caucasus. As is the case with all nuclear power plants, the management and transport of waste constitute a persistent problem.

Given that the European Union has called for the closure of the Medzamor plant no later than in 2004, can the Commission indicate the arrangements for the management of the radioactive waste from the plant, i.e. is it stored in Armenia or, if it is exported, what is its destination and how is it transported?

Has a transitional energy strategy for the post-2004 period been discussed and drawn up by the Armenian authorities and their EU counterparts, one which would take particular account of that country’s remarkable potential in renewable energies, chief among which is solar power, and would ring down the curtain on nuclear power generation and all its associated problems?

Spent fuel from Medsamor was sent to the Soviet Union for reprocessing in the past, without the obligation of the generated waste being returned. This practice was interrupted after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The spent fuel has been accumulating in the spent fuel ponds of Medsamor since then. In 1996, Framatome signed an agreement with Armenia to supply dry spent fuel containers to store 612 fuel assemblies. The construction of this dry spent fuel facility, which is designed to be used for 50 years, has recently been completed and licensed. It could be extended if and when required. Out of the 847 fuel assemblies that were stored in the ponds, 336 have already been transferred to the facility. Operational radioactive waste are presently stored in the plant.

As regards an energy strategy, work has been developed jointly with the Armenian authorities to evaluate the potential for replacement energies. This strategy has been discussed with all major donors and Financing Institutions (World Bank, EBRD, US Aid, etc). One of the conclusions is that hydraulic power has the greatest potential as an alternative source of energy.

On the occasion of the recent visit of President Kocharian to Brussels, the Commission agreed that it is essential to shut down Medsamor as soon as possible and that replacement energy should be made available to Armenia as an alternate to this old nuclear plant.

The academic world in Greece and numerous European academics have appealed to the ministers responsible and to the Greek Prime Minister to abandon plans to build a rowing and canoeing centre for the 2004 Olympic Games at the site of the battle of Marathon which took place in 490 BC, a victory of such historic significance for Athenian democracy and one which is internationally recognised as a symbol of the very principles of democracy. As we know, the Olympic 'marathon' is held in honour of precisely this historic event and of the first 'marathon runner', Pheidippides, who ran the distance to bring news of the victory to the Athenians with his dying breath. The Greek Prime Minister has not yet responded to the appeals from the Athens Academy, the Archaeological Society and other academic bodies.

What measures will the Commission take to prevent the installation of these facilities at Marathon and the consequent commercialisation of the historic site, which is going ahead without the consent of the academic world, and what measures will it take to protect and preserve the historic site of the battle of Marathon, a monument which is part of the world's historical heritage?

According to Article 151 of the EC Treaty, the Community has competence in relation to:

encouraging cultural cooperation between Member States

supporting and supplementing (through financial support, if necessary) the action of Member States in the following areas:

improving the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples;

conserving and safeguarding the cultural heritage of European significance;

non-commercial cultural exchanges;

artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.

It is important to note that the same Article 151 lays down that the Community does not have competence in the field of the “harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States"⁽¹⁾1 in the cultural sector, which remains within the exclusive competence of the Member States.

Therefore, the issue raised by the honourable Member does not come within the competence of the Community but within the exclusive competence of the Member State.

Furthermore, the Commission wishes to draw the honourable Member’s attention to the fact that classifying a site as being part of a country’s heritage is not necessarily the same as protecting it. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, protection arrangements come within the exclusive competence of the Member States.

Since it is not clear from the proposals on political parties from the Commission and Council how the economic relations between national and European political parties are envisaged I would like the Commission to state its opinion on the following question:

Should European political parties be allowed to receive substantial financial support from national parties considering the dependence this inevitably will entail?

Should European political parties be allowed to dispose freely over their own economic means, including the right to use them also to finance political activities in member countries?

As the Honourable Member knows, this House gave its opinion on the Commission proposal the 17 May 2001 (doc. A5-0167/2001) and the Commission expressed its view on the amendments proposed by Parliament. The proposal is still pending before Council.

As to the honourable Member's specific queries: the proposal provides that European political parties must provide 25% of their budgets from own resources. In other words, 75% can come from the Community budget.

The funding received from the Community budget will be subject to rigorous controls as to entitlement and the use to which it is put. To ensure transparency and accountability, the draft Regulation provides for publication of the full budgets -irrespective of source of financing- of the beneficiary European Political Parties.

When Parliament considered the Commission's proposal for a regulation on the statute and financing of European political parties on 17 May, Commissioner Schreyer let it be known that the Commission had given careful consideration to the legal basis for the proposal, and in particular to the proposal's compatibility with Article 308.

What legal analyses did the Commission carry out when examining the legal basis? Will it please make the relevant texts, in particular any opinions the legal service may have delivered, accessible?

The Commission in fact examined the appropriate legal basis for its proposal when it was drawn up and adopted. It concluded that Article 308 of the EC Treaty was a good basis.

In its established case law, the Court of Justice said that Article 308 of the Treaty is a subsidiary legal basis which can only serve as a legal basis for an act if no other provision of the Treaty grants the institutions the necessary competence to lay down that act (see, for example, Judgment of 6 July 1982, Cases 188 to 190/80, France, Italy and the United Kingdom v Commission, ECR 2545, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the grounds).

It should be noted that no provision of the EC Treaty currently in force expressly grants the institutions the competence to lay down an act providing for the funding of European political parties from the Community budget. In fact, Article 191 of the Treaty (before any amendment resulting from the Treaty of Nice) contains no provision of an operational nature allowing for the adoption of a measure such as the one proposed.

However, Article 191 of the Treaty defines the European political parties as a means of integration within the Union. Since this is an article of the Treaty and not a simple political declaration, it should be interpreted as having not only a political scope and expressing a principle, but also a legal scope. In particular, the other Treaty provisions may be interpreted in the light of the principle it expresses.

It should be remembered that the Court of Justice said in its Opinion 2/94 of 28 March 1996 (ECR p. I-1759, paragraph 29), that Article 308 ‘is designed to fill the gap where no specific provisions of the Treaty confer on the Community institutions express or implied powers to act, if such powers appear none the less to be necessary to enable the Community to carry out its functions with a view to attaining one of the objectives laid down by the Treaty’. There is no doubt that Article 191, even in its current form, expresses the political need introduced by the contracting parties to the Treaty of Maastricht into the body of European Union Treaties as a whole.

Since this is the case, the Commission considered that Article 308 of the Treaty could serve as the legal basis for a measure which is intended to provide practical expression for an important means of European integration, which is now one of the general objectives of the Treaty.

Finally, the Commission does not have any documents which can be communicated to the honourable Member, bearing in mind that the debates on this issue took place orally within the Commission and that the position it adopted in law is under no doubt.

Given that value added tax is a regressive tax that hits the poorest families hardest, and given that family incomes in the applicant countries are generally lower than in the EU, can the Commission explain what measures it envisages to ensure that childcare needs are not subject to large VAT increases in the applicant countries as a result of accession to the EU? Can it also confirm that it will welcome any proposal made in the context of current accession negotiations on the tax chapter to mitigate the burden of VAT on less well-off families in the applicant countries?

Negotiations on the taxation chapter started in November 1999 with six candidate countries. During the first semester 2001 the chapter has been or will be opened with four additional candidate countries. Negotiations, aimed at discussing the terms under which candidate countries will adopt and implement the Community legislation in force on taxation, have been progressing, however the chapter has not as yet been provisionally closed with any of the concerned candidate country.

The Community VAT legislation, the Sixth VAT Directive of 17 May 1977, (77/388/EEC, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977 as amended) provides for the application of the standard VAT rate on the supply of childcare products.

As a general rule, candidate countries are expected to fully align to Community acquis by the time of accession. However, in the framework of negotiations, they are entitled to request transitional arrangements in order to postpone full compliance with certain aspects of the acquis to a later date. The Community general negotiation position is that transitional measures have to be exceptional, limited in time and scope and accompanied by a plan with clearly defined stages for the application of the acquis. Furthermore, they must not involve amendments to the rules or policies of the Community, disrupt their proper functioning, or lead to significant distortions of competition within the Internal Market.

One candidate country has requested a transitional period concerning childcare necessities (children’s clothing and footwear). This request is currently being assessed by the Commission.

According to a recent report by the European Statistical Office, EUROSTAT, Greece takes last place among the Fifteen as regards vocational training for its farmers, with a rate very close to 0% as opposed to figures approaching 35% in the most advanced EU countries such as France. EUROSTAT also concluded that barely 300 000 Greek agricultural households had or worked sufficient land for a livelihood without outside sources of income. It is obvious that modernisation and competitiveness of holdings will largely depend on the level of vocational training among farmers. Why does the Commission consider that it is impossible in Greece to promote programmes of this nature?

How can the Commission help with the development in Greece of a comprehensive and forward looking programme for vocational training for farmers and systematically informing them of new technologies and farming methods?

The Commission believes that the promotion of the professional training of the farmers in Greece is both possible and desirable. In this context, the Commission is in a position to inform the honourable Member that in the national Operational Programme for Employment and Professional Training included in the Community Support Framework (CSF) 2000-2006 for Greece, the agricultural training agency OGEKA/DIMITRA is explicitly foreseen as a provider of professional training. Through this programme it is scheduled to train at least 70,000 active farmers, this figure being subject to further increase following the demand during the implementation of the programme.

Apart from this, the acquisition of sufficient professional skills is a prerequisite for any farmer, who wishes to invest in farming through Community financial assistance.

It is, therefore, expected that the CSF 2000-2006 for Greece will offer the adequate framework in improving the professional training of the Greek farmers.

According to an article in the International Herald Tribune on 15 May 2001, Mr Nancy Abeid Arahumane has not been allowed to export to the European Union the cheese produced from camel's milk in his cheese factory in Nouakchot, Mauritania, because of bureaucratic difficulties arising chiefly from the lack of regulations concerning this type of product.

As the opportunity to export this cheese to the Union would provide an albeit modest income for a producer from one of the poorest countries in the world, and given the absurdity of a ban based on a legislative deficiency, what measures will the Commission take to ensure that this case has a positive outcome?

The Commission cannot share the opinion of the honourable Member on the alleged restrictions on the import of camel-milk products from Mauritania due to a lack of regulations concerning this type of product. Community veterinary legislation applies to all animal products irrespective of their origin, ensuring the same high level of consumer and animal health protection.

The Commission pays careful attention to the import from third countries of live animals and products of animal origin, because they could constitute a hazard, in particular, for human and animal health in the Community. In this context, there is a permanent updating and revision of the Community lists of third countries authorised to export milk and milk-based products to the Community. Mauritania does not, at present, appear on these lists, which are drawn up on the basis of information provided by the [“Office International des Epizooties” (O.I.E.) World Organisation for Animal Health] and by the national competent authorities of the exporting country.

The Commission has been in contact, for many years, with Mrs Abeiderrahmane providing her with assistance and advice in the follow-up of this file. However, the Commission never received an application, including the necessary official public and animal health guarantees, from the competent authorities of Mauritania. These guarantees concern the performance of the competent authorities, the control structures, inspection systems and frequency of checks. The sanitary status of the country as regards foot-and-mouth disease must be assessed in order to define what kind of products may be imported and under which conditions. Only milk products which have undergone a double pasteurisation, or an acidification resulting in an equivalent level of destruction of foot-and-mouth disease virus can be accepted from a country that is not free from foot-and-mouth disease.

In 1996, a first step was achieved when the possibility for importation of milk and milk-based products from species other than cattle, sheep, goats and buffaloes was introduced into Community legislation (see Commission Decision 96/90/EC). Since then, the Commission has continued to follow up the file, requesting scientific and technical advice on the matter.

Unfortunately, the characteristics of camel's milk are not completely covered by the scientific and technical knowledge, on which Community legislation as regards the import of milk products was constructed. The question of the ability of camels to transmit foot-and-mouth disease to other species has not yet received a clear scientific answer.

Moreover, the phosphatase test, which is the international reference test to check that pasteurisation of milk is achieved, cannot be satisfactorily interpreted when applied to camel milk. The Commission is trying to solve this major problem, with the technical assistance of the Community Reference Laboratory for milk and milk-products. The Commission is aware of the potential economic impact of these rules on third countries, in particular for less developed countries. The Community is, however, not in a position to allow the lowering of its level of protection. The recent foot-and-mouth disease crisis in Europe has shown that a cautious approach is necessary.

What is the political purpose of the TACIS Programme? Who is responsible? Is the Commission satisfied that the aim of 'transfer of technical expertise' is being achieved?

The aim of Tacis has been, since 1991, to support the transition process towards market economy and democracy in the New Independent States (former Soviet Union minus the Baltic States).

Increasingly it is an instrument supporting the political and economic partnership between the Union and the Partner States. It provides know-how to improve trade and investment climate, promotes civil society and tackles issues of mutual interest (environment, nuclear safety, health).

The External Relations Directorate General is responsible for Tacis programming: definition of objectives, areas of co-operation and strategies, on the basis of Union’s and Partner States’ priorities. The EuropeAid Co-operation Office is in charge of project identification, implementation and evaluation.

The Commission recognises that there have been problems in the management of TACIS in ensuring that the projects are genuinely responsive to local needs. With this in mind, unification of the project cycle management under EuropeAid and simplification of procedures will ensure that the identification and quick implementation of projects is more closely linked to local needs. De-concentration of responsibilities to the Delegation will further enable a quick adaptation of the projects to local conditions.

The effectiveness of the transfer of technical expertise is regularly monitored at project, sector and country levels. Conclusions of evaluations are feed back into the programming and project implementation processes, thus helping the Commission to improve the impact of the Tacis programme.

Swedish local authorities are currently carrying out expensive analyses in respect of no fewer than 3000 bathing places; samples for the 750 most frequented are subsequently forwarded to the EU.

Under a new EU proposal, all regularly used bathing places are to be subject to quality control, i.e. in Sweden's case, no fewer than 3000 bathing places during the short summer and bathing season.

What statistics concerning unfit water and the spread of e-coli bacteria in Sweden, and what assessment of the costs and additional work for the local authorities underlie this proposal to extend the quality control of bathing water?

It is the responsibility of the competent authorities of each Member State to identify waters that fall under the Bathing Water Directive. The Bathing Water Directive concerns “all running or still fresh waters or parts thereof and sea water in which bathing is explicitly authorised by the competent authorities of each Member State or bathing is not prohibited and is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers”.

This means that not all Swedish lakes, rivers and coastal beaches are/have to be identified as bathing waters under the bathing water directive. The limiting factor will be “…where bathing is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers”. It is left to the competent authorities to assess what a large number of bathers are. To give you an example, 50 bathers are not a lot in Spain, but in Northern Sweden this would be certainly be considered as a large number. On the basis of the definition of the Directive, the Swedish government has identified 372 coastal and 401 fresh water bathing areas.

On average in the Community, one single laboratory analysis of a water sample costs about EUR 25. The number of samples under the current directive depends on the length of the bathing season. In Sweden, the officially declared bathing season is about two months, running from 20 June to 20 August. The Directive requires 1 sample to be taken every 14 days and one extra sample before the season, which means 5 samples have to be taken for an average Swedish bathing water, coming to a total analysis cost per year per bathing area of around EUR 125.

The Commission is currently working on a proposal for a revised directive and no decision has yet been taken on the exact definition of bathing waters for such as revised directive. It does not expect, however, that in a first instance the number of bathing areas would increase dramatically, but would rather remain in the same range, so for Sweden around 750 bathing areas.

The Commission's proposal, COM(1999)0004⁽¹⁾, amending Directive 92/117/EEC⁽²⁾ concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses and specific zoonotic agents states that it is necessary to carry out a substantial review of the directive. Such a substantial review is said to consist, inter alia, of introducing 'improved rules for the control of … other zoonoses than salmonellosis'.

Sweden still requires vaccination against distemper and the deworming of imported dogs and cats in an effort to combat dwarf tapeworm. The dwarf tapeworm is a particularly unpleasant zoonosis which, in the worst case scenario, can be transferred via foxes and rodents to berries and mushrooms in the woods and from there to humans, with death as the probable outcome. Every year, some 30 cases are identified in Europe, and an infected fox has recently been discovered in Denmark. At the same time, the Commission is rumoured to be considering depriving Sweden of the possibility of taking the above safety precautions, possibly in conjunction with the revision of the directive on zoonoses.

Can the Commission confirm that these rumours are correct? What changes are actually planned with regard to the Member States' control of zoonoses in general and of the dwarf tapeworm in particular?

The question put to the Commission concerns the public health problem caused by a tape worm (Echinococcus multilocularis) whose adult form is carried by domestic or wild carnivores and whose larval form can lead to serious and sometimes fatal pathologies in humans. This zoonosis, while rare, has been observed throughout wide areas of the European continent.

However, it has never been discovered within the territory of certain countries such as Sweden, the United Kingdom or Ireland. The Commission is aware that, in order to prevent the introduction of this tape worm, the Swedish authorities require dogs and cats to be de-wormed before they are allowed into Swedish territory. The United Kingdom and Ireland have adopted equivalent provisions.

The Commission clearly does not intend to prohibit these Member States from maintaining this precautionary measure since this is a public health issue with serious consequences.

The rumour referred to here may not be connected to the draft amendment of Directive 92/117/EEC on zoonoses, but very possibly to the proposed European Parliament and Council regulation on the health regulations applicable to non-commercial movements of pets.

This proposed regulation was examined by Parliament at its plenary sitting of 2 May 2001. The point raised here was dealt with during parliamentary debates and it was explained at that time that the response to the concern that the current system implemented by the Swedish authorities and others would be brought into question was contained in Article 8 of the proposal. This Article 8, in effect, lays down that a Member State may obtain additional guarantees when a particular situation justifies it, which is undoubtedly so in the case of Echinococcus Multilocularis and the protection of the Member States which are not infested with this parasite. Having the recourse to the provisions of this article will therefore allow the Swedish authorities to maintain the obligation to de-worm carnivores before they enter Swedish territory.

What assurances will the Commission give that following the launching of its Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy, it will ensure more involvement of the industry and other stakeholders?

The Green Paper identifies four main objectives for the future Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), among them the increasing involvement of stakeholders in the decision making process.

Indeed, in many instances fishermen have complained of their lack of involvement in the formulation of rules that affect their daily working lives.

The Commission suggests in the Green Paper to establish a network of regional advisory committees on fisheries as a way to strengthen involvement of all stakeholders in discussions about fisheries management at an early stage. However, this new procedure must be compatible with the Treaty and the Community character of the CFP.

The Green Paper also suggests decentralising certain management responsibilities in order to address local and emergency situations effectively.

Meanwhile, in the context of the emergency measures taken by the Commission and of the preparation of the recovery plans for cod in the Irish Sea, the North Sea and the West of Scotland as well as for Northern hake, which are to be put in place in the coming months, the Commission has associated closely representatives of the industry, of the Member States and scientists with the decision making process. It is its intention to continue associating the stakeholders concerned in this process.

Moreover, in the framework of the Action Plan to strengthen the dialogue with the industry and other groups interested in the CFP, adopted in mid-1999, the Commission is implementing a series of activities. Representatives of the European Fishing Sector and other groups are regularly consulted through the renewed Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture; informal discussions on matters of common interest are also being regularly held within regional workshops focussing on specific fisheries.

Information and communication activities, such as the publication of a bi-monthly magazine in all 11 languages and the distribution of information on paper but also on the multilingual web site, are also carried out by the Commission in order to ensure that the industry and other stakeholders are properly informed of new initiatives and developments concerning the CFP, so that they can take part effectively in the dialogue with the Community on this policy.

In view of the serious delay in amending the Turkish Civil Code and removing institutionalised discrimination against women, the high rate of unemployment, illiteracy and domestic violence, and in the light of the undemocratic treatment of Mrs Sema Piskinsut, a member of parliament, and her son on 29 April 2001 during the congress held by Mr Bulent Ecevit's party, when she was pressured to withdraw as a candidate for the chairmanship of the party and was subsequently removed from her post as chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights Commission, what steps will the Commission take, in the context of the pre-accession process, to compel Turkey to comply with the European acquis and respect the human rights and democratic freedoms of women?

The Commission considers the departure of Mrs Piskinsut as chairperson of the Human Rights Committee of the Turkish Parliament in November 2000 as well as was her candidacy for chairmanship of the Democratic Sol Party (DSP) to be a matter of internal Turkish politics.

However, the Commission regrets the way in which her possibilities to speak at the DSP Congress was curtailed.

The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member, that the situation in Turkey on gender equality needs to be improved. This matter is specifically included in the European Union’s Accession Partnership and the Commission has noted some commitments from the Turkish Government in their National Program for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA). The Commission looks forward to the implementation of these commitments and has stated its readiness to verify the compliance of these legal steps with the Community acquis known to the Turkish authorities.

On the Commission’s Internet site for the ERDF and Cohesion Fund successful projects aided by EU support are listed, one of which concerns a novel project in Finland for recycling construction materials aimed at finding alternative employment for jobless professionals in the construction industry. Can the Commission provide an up-to-date assessment of the project and indicate if the demand for used construction materials has been maintained, and does it consider that this type of initiative would transfer to other Member States and, if so, would support be available from the ERDF?

The Construction Materials project is continuing to operate in the City of Joensuu, Finland. The launch of the project was co-financed by the First Urban Community Initiative. The amount of national public support is now minimal.

According to the project manager responsible, there has been increased demand for used and recycled construction materials. The project recruits difficult-to-place long-term unemployed -at present some 30 persons are employed- and this year the project will be able to offer work for 15 more. The Construction Materials project is an example of a social enterprise, in which the costs of the firm and salaries of permanent staff are covered by sales proceeds. Training is an integral part of the employment process.

The concept aims to solve some difficult problems, such as recycling and use of second-hand construction material development of social enterprises to complement traditional, commercial businesses creation of necessary preconditions to enable the long-term unemployed to return to working life

This type of initiative may well be transferable to other Member States. This is one of the reasons why the project has been given additional publicity by the Commission via the internet site of the Directorate General for Regional Policy. Under the mainstream programmes and Community Initiatives, the selection of projects is, however, a responsibility that is decentralised to the authorities on the ground in the Member States in conformity with the broad strategic objectives agreed with the Commission.

Will the Commission report on the outcome of the visit to the United States by Commissioner Fischler in May 2001 and, in particular, will the Commission state what farm policy issues other than WTO matters were discussed and if any new initiatives are being pursued in the US in relation to securing the future of farmers in rural areas?

Firstly, and most positively, the Commission believes that the Community has a lot in common with the United States. They both have a commitment to support agriculture; they are both major importers and exporters; and they share key interests in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agriculture negotiations.

Secondly, on questions such as biotechnology and health restrictions, the Commission found an improving understanding of the Community position and a greater willingness to listen. But fundamental differences remain. The Commission was able to press Community's case for restrictions on imports due to FMD to be regionalised, in line with scientific advice.

Thirdly, there is a willingness in the new Administration and in Congress, to try to understand better the Community's policy and the true extent of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms. The Commission believes that there is an opportunity to change the way transatlantic business is conducted, in particular to work constructively on trade irritants.

Fourthly, and this is not so positive, the Commission has seen little evidence that the United States is heading in a positive direction in respect of domestic farm support and export subsidisation. The focus of discussion for farm support is on "counter-cyclical" measures. That is, when prices or incomes (which are a function of price) are low, the government will make up the expected difference with cash. This will impede market signals to farmers and lead to chronic problems of over-production and falling prices. As for export subsidies, while the Community record is one of transparency, reduction, and discipline within World trade organisation (WTO) rules, the United States is expanding the various non-transparent ways in which the government promotes exports, which completely escape current WTO discipline.

The honourable Member also asks about new initiatives to secure the future of American farmers in rural areas. As just mentioned, the main discussion seems to be on the "counter-cyclical" policy of shielding farmers from the market without getting any tax-payer value in return.

However, one initiative recently put forward by the new Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Tom Harkin, should be mentioned. He has proposed "conservation security" programmes, whereby farmers would be paid to provide environmental benefits from their farming operations.

What useful contribution does the Commission consider the European Union can make to helping to resolve the serious problem brought to light by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which has warned that more than 500 000 tonnes of banned or expired pesticides are seriously threatening the health of millions of people and the environment in nearly all developing states and countries in transition and that Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union account for 200 000 tonnes of these obsolete pesticides?

Indeed, as the Honourable Member points out, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has recently revealed that the amount of obsolete pesticides existing in the world is five times higher than previously thought.

All obsolete pesticides, being unfit for use, must be considered as waste, and more precisely as hazardous waste due to their dangerous properties. Therefore, their disposal has to follow all the provisions of the legislation on hazardous waste, and has to be closely monitored.

This subject is of considerable concern to the Community, as demonstrated by the adoption and signing by the Commission on behalf of the Community of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) at the Diplomatic Conference on 21-23 May 2001. Among the twelve pollutants addressed in this Convention, nine are mainly used as pesticides.

The Community and its Member States are strongly committed to a rapid and effective implementation of the provisions of the POPs Treaty. This should be achieved by providing adequate technical and financial assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition in order to help them meet the provisions of the Treaty.

Furthermore, this Community pledge is also fully consistent with the work carried out by several other international organisations on the obsolete pesticides issue (namely, FAO, UNEP, WHO, Basel Convention secretariat). A concrete example is the recent financial support provided by the Commission to the 6th International HCH (Hexachlorohexane) & Pesticides Forum held in Poland which emphasised the importance of disposing of stocks of obsolete pesticides, in particular in Central and Eastern Europe. Furthermore, in the framework of its Development Policy, the Commission has also recently financed the production of the manual Control of Pesticides and IPM, which gives practical guidelines on how to deal with obsolete pesticides, among other issues. Such guidelines have been widely distributed among the Services.

The Stockholm Convention is a very important step towards achieving the environmentally-sound disposal of not only the pesticides included in the Convention but of all obsolete pesticides, by putting this issue high on the political agenda due to the very serious risks to the environment they constitute.

While the Commission has ignored concerns expressed by Parliamentarians regarding money laundering using the euro and counterfeiting of the euro, has it seen the report in the Financial Times of 22 May stating that Europol believes there is 'a potential, significant risk of increased financial crime during the changeover'? Is it now finally planning to look at the matter again?

The Commission is aware of the risk of increased financial crime during the changeover period.

All necessary measures are being taken to minimise this risk. For that purpose, the Commission closely collaborates with Europol and the European Central Bank (ECB) on the protection of the euro.

A package of legislative measures has already come into force respectively will come into force before long.

This includes, among others, a basic Regulation laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting and a Decision on the protection of the euro against counterfeiting to be adopted by the Council; the Council Decision extending Europol’s role to cover counterfeiting; a framework Decision increasing penalties and sanctions against counterfeiting; the Council’s Directive on money laundering, including the proposal amending this Directive; the Commission proposal for a Council Decision establishing a training, exchange and assistance programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting.

In addition, a number of Guidelines, Recommendations and Communications have been issued by the ECB and the Commission, while Europol's role in protecting the euro has been emphasised in the Council conclusions.

On the level of implementation of the technical and law enforcement procedures, work is well advanced in Member States, Europol and the ECB.

Finally, at European level, co-ordination among the main bodies and institutions concerned, is organised at the steering group for the protection of the euro, with participation of the Commission, the ECB and Europol.

What financial aid did the Republic of Macedonia receive in 2000 – for example, for economic and political reforms and for the expansion of the Tetovo University – and what are the plans for 2001?

Assistance to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) aims at ensuring the country’s effective participation in the Stabilisation and Association Process. The assistance is therefore linked to the implementation of various requirements contained by the Stabilisation and Association Agreement of which FYROM was the first country in the region to conclude one. It is strategically programmed to bring the country closer to Union standards and principles, to facilitate the process of economic and social transformation towards a market economy and to underpin and support the achievements to date in the field of democracy by strengthening the institutional and administrative capacity of the state.

FYROM was allocated an amount of EUR 25 million in the year 2000 under the PHARE programme. An amount of EUR 42.5 million will be made available from the CARDS 2001 programme to support political and economic reform of the country. The 2001 programme takes account of recent developments and tries to tackle some of the root causes to the conflict, notably through actions such as the SEE University, the Small Scale Infrastructure Fund for municipalities and the Small Project Fund, all of which target inter ethnic co-operation and reconciliation. On top of the mainstream funding, FYROM received EUR 30 million macro financial assistance in loans and grants in 2000, however further allocations during this year are subsequent to fulfilment of reform conditions.

The Commission decided last year to support the establishment of the South East Europe University (SEEU) near Tetovo in the country as an important step in providing for the educational rights of the Albanian community there and inter-ethnic reconciliation in general. A contribution of EUR 1 million was made under the 2000 budget, followed by another EUR 4 million under the 2001 budget. The contribution of EUR 1million has already been paid; the remaining EUR 4 million contribution was due to be paid in the first week in June.

The project to supply Thessaloniki with water from the River Aliakmon (No. 194/09/61/005) was included as one of the projects funded under the Cohesion Fund in 1995 and was endowed with a budget of 80.8 million ecus. The decision to grant financial assistance under the regulation establishing a Cohesion Fund⁽¹⁾ states that the operational phase of the project should have begun on 1 August 1998 and the project should have been completed on 31 December 1998.

Given that, six years later, the project has still not been completed and that Thessaloniki is facing an acute water shortage leading to cuts in water supply and has a very poor water supply system with many leaks, will the Commission tell us what the reasons are for the delays in completion of the project, what stage construction work has reached and when it is due to be completed? What is the Community contribution, what amounts have been granted so far and what measures will be taken in future to ensure the utilisation of the funds made available so that the project can be completed?

The project to supply Thessaloniki with water from the River Aliakmon is intended to cover the drinking water supply needs of the town of Thessaloniki in the north of Greece.

This important Cohesion Fund project has suffered a series of delays which are due, according to information from the competent Greek authorities, to:

- legal problems such as complaints about the granting of public contracts for certain parts of the work, delays relating to controls undertaken by the Greek authorities of certain companies responsible for construction;

- internal problems within a large construction company (Ergomichaniki) which is responsible for part of the work;

- the modification of the studies concerning the water treatment plant, resulting from the competent authorities having decided to apply stricter quality standards than those initially laid down;

- archaeological finds requiring a substantial amount of work in order to move or bypass them adequately ;

- the modification of certain elements of the project in order not to interfere with work on the construction of the Egnatia motorway.

The accumulated delay is estimated by the Commission to be of around three and a half years. In relation to funding, the total cost of the project for the programming period 1994-1999 amounted to EUR 66 120 557 of which the Community contribution was EUR 56 202 474. For the period 2000-2006, an additional EUR 44.13 million have been allocated to this project, of which EUR 25.25 million are from the Cohesion Fund.

Total expenditure for this project, at the end of March 2001, amounted to EUR 61.2 million.

Given the difficulties encountered, the Commission has increased its monitoring of this project and has asked the authorities responsible for its management, and the ultimate beneficiary, to provide it with regular progress reports.

The Greek Government, acting in a totally arbitrary fashion, is imposing administrative restrictions on cotton production in Greece, involving regional and individual division of the quota of 1 137 750 tonnes. As a result, it is not the total quantity produced but the above-mentioned figure, which is regarded as eligible for aid, thereby infringing the new regulation.

Throughout deliberations regarding the new regulation, all proposals concerning regional and individual quota allocations were rejected. Furthermore, in accordance with the new regulation, Member States are only entitled to restrict cotton production in certain regions for properly justified environmental reasons and not for vague and petty party political motives. In view of this, what steps will the Commission take to end this arbitrary action by the Greek Government and ensure that the total production of all land which has already been sown and is under cotton is eligible for aid?

The Commission is carefully examining the provisions decided on by the Greek Government in relation to restrictions of the surface areas of cotton eligible for aid for 2001-2002, as well as the reasons for these provisions.

At this stage, the Commission cannot comment on the extent to which they comply with the new Community regulation recently decided on by the Council.

The Commission is proposing that funding be earmarked for the implementation of local employment pacts with a view to increasing job opportunities and combating unemployment.

Does the Commission have any evaluation reports regarding local employment pacts? Can it inform us whether they have proved effective in those regions where they have been implemented?

Given the persistent levels of unemployment in Greece and the increase in regional imbalances, how useful does it consider the local employment pacts considered to have been in those regions where they have been implemented? Does their actual effect correspond to the significance attached to them by the Commission?

Will the Commission propose more specific and binding guidelines regarding implementation of these pacts and the use of Community funding?

Seven territorial employment pacts (TEPs) were presented to the Commission by the Greek authorities for approval in the beginning of 1998. Following a proposal by the Ministry of National Economy the TEPs were incorporated as a separate sub-programme in the respective Regional Operational Programmes for Thessaly, Western Macedonia, Peloponese, Eastern Macedonia, Continental Greece and Attica.

The actions proposed and approved under the seven Greek Pacts have a strong element of combined training, on-the-job training and employment promotion, mainly in the fields of domestic economy, promotion of entrepreneurship in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), involving in some cases disadvantaged people and innovative environmental projects in agriculture.

The local employment generated by the Pacts was foreseen to be approximately 600 posts in a period of two years.

The partnership arrangements have mobilised to a great extend the local actors creating a valuable experience and a substantial precedent for the establishment of the bottom up approach at regional and local level in Greece. Difficulties have been encountered in mobilising to a larger extend the private sector. However, the close collaboration of local authorities, social partners and local development agencies in taking up and promoting local employment initiatives creates an element of innovation in Greece.

Implementation of the Greek Pacts is foreseen to take place until the end of 2001. An evaluation report on the quantitative and qualitative impact in generating employment and achieving the objectives set is expected by June 2002 on the occasion of the closure of the Regional Operational Programmes under the Community support framework (CSF) 1994-1999 for Greece.

In addition, a specific ex-post evaluation of the impact of the TEPs in all Member States is foreseen and the results will be available by mid-2002.

The Commission recently issued a publication entitled 'Europe on the Right Track', which was presented by the Commissioner responsible for regional policy and which sets out the transport projects funded under the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund. In that publication, a graph shows the fourteen trans-European transport network projects that have been declared a priority and are to be completed by 2010. Some sections of the high-speed network which have been 'imminent' for years do not appear among those projects.

Does this mean that the sections which are not listed among the priorities will be delayed, or, at least, will not be completed by 2010?

If this is the case, who took the decision to set these priorities and when? Do the governments of the Member States concerned agree with the priorities?

Whatever the case, can the Commission give a firm date for the construction of the high-speed rail link between Cordoba and Malaga in Andalusia (Objective 1), Spain? Can it confirm that it will be funded under ERDF and/or the Cohesion Fund during the 2000-2006 programming period?

The graph referred to by the honourable Member represents the specific projects to which the European Council in Essen in 1994 and the European Council in Dublin in 1996 gave particular importance. It should not be inferred that projects not appearing on that graph will not be carried out before 2010.

European Parliament and Council Decision 1692/96 on the guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Network (TEN) defines the general reference framework for the creation of links to be gradually put in place by 2010. The links identified in the graphs which are annexed to the Decision are more numerous than the above-mentioned projects and, furthermore, include the Cordoba-Malaga rail link.

In accordance with Article 156 of the EC Treaty, these guidelines and specific projects are defined with the approval of the Member States involved.

The above-mentioned decision does not set a more precise timetable for the creation of individual lines. It falls to the national authorities in question to specify the timetables for the creation of individual lines. This is so in the case of the Cordoba-Malaga link.

The Commission, however, would like to draw the honourable Member’s attention to its substantial support for the creation of that link. The first studies for the high-speed rail link between Cordoba and Malaga were funded in 2000 under the financial instrument for the TENs. The total cost of these studies is EUR 12 million and the Community co-finances 50% of that cost, in other words, EUR 6 million. These studies should be completed by the end of 2001.

The Integrated Operational Programme for Andalusia 2000-2006 provides, furthermore, for co-financing from the Structural Funds for the construction of this link, that is, of 155 km of double-track line connecting Cordoba to Malaga at a maximum speed of 350 kph, thereby extending the high-speed Madrid-Cordoba-Seville line towards the south-east.

After being broadcast in fifteen countries 'Big Brother', the television programme is shortly to be shown in Greece. This prospect has provoked a considerable reaction from both associations and individual citizens, and is being examined by the National Broadcasting Council.

Past experience with this type of programme (reality shows) has shown that they give rise to psychological problems in the participants and raise more general questions of the invasion of privacy and the debasement of human dignity.

Does the Commission agree that the increasing phenomenon of reality shows is a threat to the principles of the protection of privacy and of human dignity and, if so, does it intend to submit proposals for the introduction of a code of ethics, in connection with the debate on 'Television without Frontiers'?

The Television Without Frontiers Directive (Council Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) provides the legal framework for television broadcasting within the Community.

In addition, the Recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services was adopted by the Council on 28 May 1998. The Recommendation aims to provide guidelines for national legislation. The Recommendation offers guidelines for the development of national self-regulation regarding the protection of minors and human dignity.

The Directive provides that each Member State shall ensure that all television broadcasts transmitted by broadcasters under its jurisdiction comply with the rules of the system of law applicable to broadcasts intended for the public in that Member State.

However, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Directive does not affect the responsibility of the Member States and their authorities with regard to the organisation - including the systems of licensing, administrative authorisation or taxation - financing and the content of programmes. Member States may, therefore, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, establish rules concerning the content of programmes broadcast by broadcasters within their jurisdiction.

In addition, Member States remain free, under the EC Treaty rules on free movement on goods and services, to apply internal legislation on grounds, where appropriate according respectively to Articles 36 and 56, of public morality, public policy or public health, as long as such prohibitions do not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.

A regulation in this area at Community level, could only be considered if the establishment and functioning of the Internal Market called for the approximation of the provisions currently applied by the Member States in this field. The Commission is not aware of any circumstances calling for such action but would be interested in any further information that could be supplied.

Does the Commission consider that the Trollhätte canal, the Göta river, lake Vänern, lake Mälaren and the Södertälje canal should be covered by Community legislation on inland waterways transport or not?

If the Trollhätte canal and lake Vänern, for example, were part of the land transport system, no levies would be payable and the Swedish state would be responsible for investments in the same way as for roads and railways. The waterway in question is principally operated by the shipping line of Vänerhamn AB. This firm is opposed to a change to the current situation, pointing out the Sweden has no equivalent to the inland waterways transport which exists on the continent. There is, however, a great deal of uncertainty, particularly in Western Sweden, about which category inland waterways will be placed in.

Does the Commission have any view on whether the Trollhätte canal, the Göta river, lake Vänern etc should be covered by legislation on inland waterways in the EU? Can the Commission state whether economic aid from the Community to transport in this sector would be greater if it were covered by Community legislation on inland waterways transport?

In principle, the Commission considers it desirable for Community legislation in the field of inland navigation to be applied to all inland waterways, but it accepts, on the basis of information provided by the Swedish authorities, that the Swedish inland waterways, although located in the interior of the country, should be considered as maritime and obey maritime regulations and not the regulations in the field of inland navigation. Likewise, the vessels navigating them are subject to maritime technical standards. Therefore, the Commission considers that the inland waterways mentioned by the honourable Member do not fall within the scope of the Community legislation on inland navigation.

Swedish waterways such as the Trollhätte canal, the Göta river and lake Vänern etc. are not subject to European Parliament and Council Decision No 1692/96/E⁽¹⁾C1 of 23 July 1996 on the Community guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Transport Network, and are not, therefore, eligible for Community funding. The possibility of incorporating them into the Trans-European Network of waterways could be examined in a future revision of the Trans-European Networks if the Member State so wishes.

On 21 May 2001 Mr Ismail Cem reiterated the threat of action by Turkey if Cyprus became an EU Member State before the Cypriot problem was resolved (political committee of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly). In addition, in a circular to 14 of the EU Member States ambassadors in Ankara excluding the Greek ambassador, the Turkish foreign ministry warned of increased tension in Cyprus and called for the process of Cypriot accession to the EU to be halted.

A statement issued by the Turkish national defence Council of 29 May 2001 indicated that peace and security in the eastern Mediterranean would be endangered if Cyprus joined the EU.

Will the Commission take steps to stop Turkey from issuing these threats and if so what steps will it take? What action will the EU take should Turkey fulfil its threats if Cypriot accession proceeds and Cyprus becomes an EU Member State as planned?

The Union discusses the issue of Cyprus in the framework of the enhanced political dialogue with Turkey. The next opportunity will be at the EU/Turkey Association Council of 26 June 2001. The Commission is of the opinion that a settlement of the Cyprus issue should be reached though the good-offices talks under the aegis of United nations (UN) Secretary General which should resume as soon as possible.

As regards the accession of Cyprus to the Union, the Commission would like to recall the conclusions of the Helsinki European Council which state at point 9.b: "The European Council underlines that a political settlement will facilitate the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. If no settlement has been reached by the completion of accession negotiations, the Council’s decision on accession will be made without the above being a precondition. In this the Council will take account of all relevant factors."