The object of the common foreign and security policy is that the EU should act resolutely as one in the international arena to promote peace and security in Europe and the outside world. The Member States' conduct in the Iraq conflict has been the opposite; it has followed national interests and damaged the credibility of the EU's foreign policy and the CFSP. Unfortunately, the Presidency has contributed to the disunity by unilaterally adopting the Franco-German line.

It is the Presidency's responsibility to try to find compromises and common solutions to promote a united EU stance on various issues. The Danish Presidency showed great skill in this area. The disagreement over the Iraq conflict has not least been a factor in reducing confidence in the EU in the applicant countries.

What initiatives does the Greek Presidency intend to take to avoid a recurrence of a similar situation in foreign policy in the future?

(FR) The Presidency has made every effort to ensure the European Union speaks with one voice on the Iraq crisis. Like the honourable Member, it believes that the more united the EU is, the stronger it is, and the more it can make its voice heard in the international community. For this reason, the Council adopted significant conclusions on Iraq at its first meeting on 27 January. An initiative based on these conclusions was launched on 4 February in order to send a clear message to the Iraqi authorities. The 13 candidate countries supported this action. Subsequently, the Presidency took the lead and convened an Extraordinary European Council on 17 February. This resulted in a common declaration endorsed by the candidate countries the very next day. The declaration enshrined EU agreement on the key issues of the crisis:

Saddam Hussein should be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction;

The United Nations should be at the centre of these efforts;

Inspections should be given a chance to work, but they should not continue indefinitely in the absence of Iraqi cooperation;

War is not inevitable. Force should be used only as a last resort;

The matter is now with the Security Council.

The Presidency will continue its efforts to achieve a common line in this and other matters.

The protocols annexed to the Treaty of Nice refer to the ‘total population of the Union’ without clarifying the meaning of the term. As far as the Union is concerned, does the term apply only to the total number of residents who are Union citizens or does it denote the total number of residents including those who are not Union citizens, or some other body of residents? When calculating the total population of the Union, how are Union citizens living outside the Union factored in?

For the purposes of the 62% quorum, is the population of individual Member States calculated with reference to:

(a) all residents of the Member State in question, irrespective of their nationality; (b) all residents who are nationals of that Member State or another Member State; (c) nationals of that Member State living on its territory and no other citizens; (d) nationals of that Member State living on its territory or in another Member State and those citizens only; (e) all nationals of that Member State, wherever they may live; or (f) a body of citizens composed in some other way?

(FR) The Council would like to inform the honourable Member that it has not yet debated these specific details. These issues and their implications will however be examined in due course, prior to 1 November 2004.

In a recent report, which has not yet been published, the Court of Auditors accuses EUROPOL - the European agency fighting organised crime - of financial irregularities and a lack of budget transparency. The report's criticism focuses on a sum of 279 000 euro representing 18 months' salary for the former Deputy Director of EUROPOL, Mr David Valls-Russell, which was paid to him despite the lack of any legal basis following the official's resignation in response to a financial scandal in his directorate. Furthermore, the report also refers to illegal funding to set up and use telephones and fax machines in officials' private homes.

What measures will the Council take to clarify this serious matter in full and to create the conditions for EUROPOL to serve the purpose for which it was established and operate on the basis of the principles of transparency, responsibility and accountability which govern all EU bodies and services?

(EN) The report by the Joint Audit Committee of Europol referred to by the honourable Member of the European Parliament forms part of the discharge procedure as laid down in Article 36 of the Europol Convention.

The Council has not taken any position regarding a possible discharge for the Director of Europol for the year 2001. As soon as the Council has decided this point, further information will be provided to the European Parliament.

It emerged from the speech of the Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharaszis to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, that improvements on human rights in Iran lie wholly outside the competence of the Iranian government.

If this is so, what is then the substance of the so-called constructive dialogue which is being held between the EU and the Iranian government?

Will the Council please comment on how long it will tolerate both the stoning of women and judicial executions before it breaks off cooperation with the Iranian government?

(EN) As for the declaration referred to in the question there is a rule for the Council not to comment on declarations by politicians. As far as the Council is concerned, it has no doubt as to the Iranian government's understanding of its competence and responsibilities in the field of human rights. Indeed, it is for precisely this reason that the Iranian government is engaging, not only in dialogue on human rights matters with the EU and with a number of other countries such as Australia, but also in co-operation with the UN and its various mechanisms in the field of human rights which monitor States' compliance with international human rights law. In any case, the Council is not aware of any elements in Foreign Minister Kharrazi's speech to the European Parliament, which might have given rise to this misunderstanding.

The constructive nature of the EU's dialogue with Iran on human rights is not merely "so-called". The substance of the dialogue lies in discussing all of the issues which are of concern to the EU regarding the situation of human rights in Iran, and in exploring how the EU can assist or support progress towards improvement on all of those issues. In order to make the dialogue as constructive as possible, the EU has recognised from the outset that it must involve not only all the relevant branches of the Iranian government - the Judiciary as well as the Parliament and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - but also Iranian civil society - academics, NGOs and the Islamic Human Rights Commission - in order to foster the internal debate for change within Iran at all levels. That is why the EU chose, for the first session of the EU-Iran human rights dialogue on 16 and 17 December 2002, to organise it in the form of a roundtable involving participants from all of the above sectors of Iranian government and society, followed by separate government talks involving the Iranian Judiciary, Parliament and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The liveliness and openness of the debate even within the Iranian delegation proved to the EU that its inclusive approach is the right one, and the EU intends to maintain this format for the foreseeable future.

The EU raised the issue of the death penalty with the Iranian government during its exploratory mission to Teheran in September/October 2002, as well as during the first session of the human rights dialogue in December and the Council notes that it has not received any corroborated evidence of any case of a person being stoned to death in Iran since the opening of the EU-Iran human rights dialogue in October last year. The EU will continue to press the Iranian government on this issue until the situation has improved, as the EU does with all other countries still imposing the death penalty with which it carries on political dialogue.

The 'Priorities of the Greek Presidency for 2003' state that 'the effectiveness of existing international treaties on the control of narcotics production and trafficking, should be reviewed'.

As the first opportunity to review the effectiveness of the conventions will be the meeting of the UN Narcotics Commission in Vienna from 8 to 17 April 2003, how does the Council intend to propose a review of the effectiveness of the conventions?

Will the Council propose a future review of the relevant international conventions, or does it already intend to table proposals for changes in April? What progress has been made by the Council and its working parties on this issue?

The 1961 UN Convention on Drugs classifies cannabis in Schedule I along with the most dangerous drugs such as heroin, and in Schedule IV includes Schedule I drugs that are considered to have limited therapeutic value and extremely dangerous properties. The 1988 UN Convention considers the principal element of cannabis, THC, only as a psychotropic substance. The logicality of these classifications consequently raises serious doubts: in fact a plant containing 3% of a principal element is dealt with more severely than the pure substance at 100%.

Does the Council think that: cannabis classification in Schedule I along with heroin is appropriate? cannabis is as dangerous as heroin? cannabis classification in Schedule IV is appropriate? cannabis has no medical value? cannabis should be treated more severely than its principal element? the Council should discuss and propose amendments for Member States aimed at the reclassification of cannabis under the UN Conventions?

The 1961, 1971 and 1988 UN conventions on drugs prohibit and criminalise a whole series of drug-related activities (cultivation, production, export and import, consumption, sale, etc). Many states imposed the death penalty for these offences when they transposed the conventions into their national law. Those states include China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Kuwait, Iran, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia.

Does the Council not consider that it is necessary, and consistent with the European Union's international position on the death penalty, to review such international conventions as a matter of urgency in order to prohibit the death penalty for drug-related offences? If so, will the Council raise this issue and table a proposal for an amendment by the EU Member States - all of which are signatories to the conventions - at the forthcoming UN meeting on drugs to be held in Vienna in April 2003?

(EN) The preparation for the 46th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs has started in the competent Council bodies in Brussels and Vienna. The session that is to be held from 8 to 17 April 2003 has a ministerial segment on 16/17 April 2003 at which difficulties encountered in meeting the goals and targets set out in the Political Declaration adopted by the General Assembly at its 20th special session in June 1998 will be discussed.

In the preparation for the statements of the Presidency at the regular session as well as at the ministerial segment due account will be given to the orientations in the note on the mid-term evaluation of the European Union Action Plan on Drugs. In this note it is said that increased attention should be given to the growing threat posed by production and consumption of synthetic drugs.

So far in the EU preparatory work no discussion has been held on the problems such as the issues raised by the honourable Members of the European Parliament i.e. modification of the Convention, cannabis classification in international law and the death penalty.

Does the Council take the view that abolishing tariff preferences (through the adoption by the EC of proposal COM/2003/0045 final for a Council regulation implementing Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) 2501/2001⁽¹⁾) for the sector live plants, flowers, edible vegetables and fruit in Colombia, as a consequence of applying the graduation mechanism, will help a country in which there are around 26 million people living in poverty, almost 30 000 violent deaths each year and around 10 kidnappings per day, in its fight against drug production and trafficking?

Does the Council not take the view that this measure may jeopardise the fragile economic, social and environmental progress made by Costa Rica in a sector which is concentrated in disadvantaged areas of the country that are highly susceptible to natural disasters, and which provides employment above all for women breadwinners and for immigrants from Nicaragua?

Does the Council not believe that applying the graduation mechanism to the beneficiaries of the 'Drugs' GSP may distort the objectives which led to the creation of what is probably the most successful trade mechanism the EU has ever adopted vis-à-vis developing countries, a mechanism which is vital for Andean and Central American countries at a time when they are facing a regional crisis?

Does the Council believe that the situation in these countries is likely to improve over the months by which the entry into force of the Regulation has been delayed?

Does it not take the view that this may send a discouraging signal to the countries concerned at a time when the Madrid Summit held out the prospect of free trade for Central America and the Andean Community? What reactions has it received from the beneficiary countries?

(EN) On 13 February 2003 the Council received the Commission proposal for Council Regulation referred to by the honourable Member and is in the process of examining it. It aims to take a decision on it before 14 May in line with the timetable set out by the regulatory procedure.

Sectoral graduation is a feature of the European Union's Scheme of Generalised Tariff Preferences. Such graduation is meant to target preferences on those countries other than those which turn out to be able to face international competition without preferential market access. In 2001 the Council decided that as a matter of principle it should also apply to the special arrangements to combat drug production and trafficking, as it already applied to the GSP in general.

The EU remains committed to the commitments made on a possible future agreement, including a Free Trade Agreement, made at the EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit.

The EU has have been informed about the position of some Latin American countries on the proposed application of the graduation scheme within the GSP.

Following the successful conclusion of the policy agreement on 11 December 2002, can the Council explain the reason for the delay in publishing the Council's common position on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC⁽¹⁾ and what are the reasons for its omission from the priorities of the Greek Presidency's programme?

(EN) With regard to this question, I would like to assure the honourable Member that the Council is strongly committed to further the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, which of course also includes putting in place the measures that will help the EU to achieve its targets. One of these measures is the proposed system for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading.

The text of the Common Position is under review, to be technically and linguistically finalised with a view to be sent formally to the European Parliament as soon as possible.

It is expected that the Common Position will be ready for transmission to the Parliament by the end of March.

What progress has the Council made with reducing energy consumption within its own buildings, in order to set a good example to the rest of the Union?

(EN) With regard to this question, I want to assure the honourable Member that the Council is strongly committed to further the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and also concerned about the consumption of energy.

In this respect I would like to make reference to the adoption of the most recent Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002). The basic objective underlying this Directive is to promote improvements of the energy performance of buildings within the EU. Energy efficiency in buildings is also promoted through the so-called SAVE Directive (93/76/EEC).

Furthermore, in its Conclusions of 30 May 2000 and of 5 December 2000, the Council endorsed the Commission's Action Plan on Energy Efficiency and requested specific measures in the building sector.

Additionally, the Council has acknowledged the importance of energy efficiency in its conclusions of 10 October 2000 on common and co-ordinated policies and measures in the European Union to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, thus contributing to the objectives of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP).

As to its own policy regarding its buildings, for several years now the Council's services have been taking steps to reduce energy consumption.

In the Council's buildings this essentially means energy saving by:

– automatic or remote switching-off of office lights;

– the replacement of old lighting by more efficient new equipment;

– improving heating and air conditioning equipment and control systems.

For a new building currently at the planning stage, which will feature the most economical energy consumption techniques, a co-generation (combined electricity and heat) plant is planned.

As regards transport, the Council has taken the following steps:

– it has recently published a call for tenders for the appointment of a consultant to assist the Council in establishing and implementing an in-house transport plan;

– in connection with this last point, the number of parking spaces in the Council's buildings has been cut by 10%, and the number of spaces for bicycles has been increased.

The Council presidency issued a statement on Western Sahara on 29 December 1998. Since then there has been a stalemate, not least because of obstructive manoeuvring by the Moroccan Government, aimed at preventing a referendum from being held. The absence of a just settlement of the conflict is affecting stability throughout the Maghreb region.

Is the Council determined to take a strong initiative, for example by adopting a new statement, in order to relaunch the peace process and bring about ‘the holding of a free, fair and impartial referendum on the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara’ (in accordance with the commitment made by the Council presidency in December 1998)?

(FR) The Council is following discussions within the United Nations Security Council closely. It fully supports the efforts made by Mr James Baker, the personal envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General, in search of a lasting solution which fully respects human rights and democracy. The United Nations has demonstrated its willingness once again to do everything necessary to resolve the problem. Mr Baker made a further visit to the region in January.

In the meantime, the European Union believes humanitarian action must be taken now, without waiting for trust between the parties to be re-established. Consequently, in December last year the European Union once again reiterated to the parties that the Moroccan prisoners of war still in the Tindouf camp should be released as a matter of urgency. They are being held in particularly unpleasant physical and psychological conditions.

In the current circumstances, the Council does not envisage adopting a position such as that suggested by the honourable Member on this issue.

The Council of Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries of the EU met in Brussels from 16 to 19 December 2002. Three Spanish autonomous regions with legislative competence for agriculture and fisheries, Andalusia, Galicia and the Basque Country, had asked the Spanish Permanent Representation to the EU whether they might be allowed not actually to take part in the meeting, but simply to have access to the press room, where the media are informed directly about progress made in negotiations between the various government representatives. The Council is fully aware of the current importance of the decisions adopted at that meeting. However, the Spanish Government refused.

Can the Council presidency therefore say whether the national delegations included representatives of territorial sub-divisions, such as federal states, regional governments, constitutional regions, autonomous governments, etc. and, if so, which Member States were involved? Similarly, can it say whether there have been other occasions on which these regional representatives took part in any of the sectoral meetings of the EU Council of Ministers? Does it not consider it illogical that the Spanish Constitution should establish the existence of the autonomous regions, but that central government should not allow such regions to uphold their constitutional competences in the Community decision-making process and have first-hand knowledge of the measures affecting them?

(FR) The Belgian delegation to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council held from 16 to 20 December 2002 referred to by the honourable Member was composed of the Federal Minister responsible for agriculture together with the Agriculture Ministers in the Walloon and Flemish Governments.

More generally, it has indeed been the case on several occasions that when Council meetings have dealt with legislative issues falling within the competence of territorial sub-divisions in certain Member States, those States have included representatives of the sub-divisions in their delegations.

The honourable Member’s attention is drawn to Article 203 of the TEC which lays down that the Council is to be composed of a ministerial level representative of each Member State. It also states that this person must be authorised to commit the government of the Member State. This is enshrined too in Annex I of the Council’s internal regulations in the provision stating that it is incumbent on each Member State to determine its representation on the Council.

No criminal charges have been brought against Professor José María Sison either in the Netherlands, the Philippines, the USA or anywhere else in the world.

Will the Council explain the reasons behind the decision to include him on the list of suspected terrorists?

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands, De Raad van State, has ruled in a judgment that Professor José María Sison is a political refugee within the meaning of Article 1A of the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. The UN Commissioner for Refugees and Amnesty International have also confirmed this.

How can the Council - on the basis of US President Bush's word alone - declare José María Sison to be a terrorist?

The New People's Army of the Philippines must be removed from the EU's list of terrorist organisations. Is it not true that the Council has approved the comprehensive agreement on respect for human rights and international humanitarian law concluded between the Philippine Government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines?

Has the EU Council considered the declaration of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and Protocol 1, subscribed to by the New People’s Army, among others, and deposited with the Swiss Federal Council and the International Committee of the Red Cross in July 1996? How can such an organisation as the New People’s Army be called terrorist when it adheres to the Geneva Conventions and Protocol 1?

(EN) Allow me to reply jointly to the four questions on Philippine organisations and the EU's list of terrorists presented by the honourable Members.

The Council has not held a discussion on any agreement regarding the respect of human rights and international humanitarian law negotiated between the Philippine Government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). Neither has it discussed the declaration of the NDFP to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and Protocol 1.

As regards the person in charge of the New Peoples Army, Mr. Jose Maria Sison, the Council decision on 28 October 2002 to include him in the EU list was based on a detailed and in-depth examination of available information fully respecting the criteria laid down in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001.

The Council would like to remind the honourable Members that bringing criminal charges against a person is not a pre-requisite to put that person on the list. Indeed, the criteria for the inclusion is strictly those laid down in Article 1(4) of the Common Position referred to above.

The Council would also like to clarify that Mr Sison has never been granted the status of political refugee within the meaning of Article 1A of the UN Convention on the Status of refugees. A request by Mr Sison to be granted that status in the Netherlands was rejected in Court on the grounds that there were serious reasons to suspect that Mr Sison had committed crimes in the Philippines as referred to in Article 1F of the Convention on Refugees. This decision has been upheld by all Courts of appeal in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, as far as the Council is informed, Mr Sison, though deprived of official status, has not been expelled to the Philippines.

Does the Council consider the fact that Turkey has occupied 37 per cent of the Republic of Cyprus since 1974 to be consistent with the Copenhagen criteria concerning human rights, democracy and market economy? Is it possible for a country such as Turkey to open accession negotiations with the Union when it continues to occupy a future Member State such as Cyprus?

(EN) The European Union has constantly reaffirmed its position on Cyprus. The Council invites the honourable Member to refer to the conclusions of the European Council which have regularly recalled the EU position. In particular, the Council underlines the conclusions of the European Council following its meeting in last December, in Copenhagen, which encourage Turkey to pursue energetically its reform process. As a matter of fact, if the European Council in December 2004, on the basis of a report and a recommendation from the Commission, decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, the European Union will open accession negotiations with Turkey without delay.

It is clear that the EU expects Turkey to co-operate constructively towards achieving a solution. Under the existing accession partnership, Turkey is required to support strongly the UN efforts to bring about a comprehensive settlement. Last year, the UN have submitted a plan for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. This plan forms the basis of the current negotiations between the two Cypriot communities. The Council underlines that in Copenhagen it has been decided that as the accession negotiations have been completed with Cyprus, Cyprus will be admitted as a new Member State to the European Union and in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Presidency conclusions, the Council has recalled its willingness to accommodate a settlement in line with the principles on which the EU is founded.

The new Turkish government has repeatedly stated that it supports the negotiation process on the basis of the UN plan, though substantial and constructive initiatives from the Turkish side remain to be seen. The EU is looking forward to a rapid agreement with the support of Turkey, hopefully in March, in accordance wit the new UN timelines and still in time to enable the signing of the accession treaty by a united Cyprus on 16 April 2003.

Given the very important role played by the tourism sector in the economies of all the Member States, particularly in the less favoured areas, and taking into account the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union, will the Greek Presidency state whether or not it intends to promote a tourism strategy for the present and future European Union?

(EN) The honourable Member will be aware that following the adoption by the Council on 21 May 2002 of the resolution on "The Future of European Tourism", it is the intention of the Greek Presidency to ensure that good progress continues to be made on a common strategy regarding the future of European tourism. Within this framework it will emphasise the following aspects:

the development of the necessary mechanisms for the integration of the interests of tourism into Community policies and especially those related to:

transport;

protection of the consumer;

employment;

the relevance of European tourism to competitiveness and the development of the European economy;

the sustainable development of tourism following the drawing up and implementation of an "Agenda 21" for tourism.

In addition the Presidency recognises the need for:

a dialogue between the public sector and Europe's tourism industry, mainly within the framework of the annual European Forum;

the promotion of cooperation networks, especially in cases of inter-regional or cross-border cooperation with Community support;

strengthening the efforts to facilitate the access of people with special needs to tourist sites and activities, particularly in view of 2003 as the international year for the disabled.

All these aspects should ensure a good foundation for the development of the tourism industry in the future, enlarged union.

The Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels in December 2002 was due to consider a Commission working document analysing the possibilities of a European Action Plan for organically produced food and organic farming and hold a policy debate on the subject. Will the Council under the Greek Presidency outline the outcome of this policy debate and what plans it has to pursue this matter further?

(EN) At its December 2002 meeting, the Agriculture and Fisheries Council took note of a presentation by the Commission of a working document analysing the possibilities of a European Action Plan (EAP) for organically produced food and organic farming. The Council held a policy debate on this subject, focussing its attention on key issues raised by the analysis with a view to enlighting possible elements for the EAP. Previously, questions regarding the future EAP had already been examined at the Special Committee on Agriculture as well as by the Council itself, in September 2002 meeting, when the Commission presented the state of play in this sector.

The Council took note of the time-table envisaged by the Commission, starting with an in-depth consultation of Member States and stakeholders on the basis of its working document and a previous questionnaire, followed by information to the Council on the progress of ongoing work by mid-2003, and by proposals for appropriate measures before the end of 2003.

In light of the broad support expressed by delegations to the project of a future EAP, the Council under Greek Presidency will follow the work progress closely and will provide for expert input where required, while looking forward to the Commission report on the state of play to be presented by mid-2003.

With 227 inhabited islands in Greece, the island phenomenon is a notable feature of the country. Taking into account Ireland’s status also as an island economy and the many other island communities in the EU, does the Greek Presidency have any plans to promote a more active islands policy at EU level over the coming six months?

(EN) The Council attaches great importance to the future of the policy on economic and social cohesion and will examine with interest, during the Greek Presidency, the 2nd Interim Report on Cohesion presented by the Commission. In this framework, the Presidency will promote the dialogue on the future of cohesion policy after enlargement and on the policies to assist areas with particular structural disadvantages, such as the islands.

There is no intention to promote during this period a more active islands policy, as such, but this issue will be on the Council agenda once the Commission has put forward its proposals for the new regional policy from 2007.

The Council is following closely and with great interest the work which is being carried out by the Commission in this field, especially as a study on the island regions is about to be concluded. This study will contribute to a wide-ranging debate that will give the Commission hints on the preparation of the Third Cohesion Report on Economic and Social Policy (end of 2003). This report will in term contribute to the drafting of the new regulations.

In answer to my previous question (H-0808/02⁽¹⁾) on the appointment of an EU Special Representative to Nepal, the Council stated that the issue had been raised but not further pursued. The Council also pointed out that the Asia Working Group had discussed the political developments in Nepal on 5 December last, including the prospect for increased international involvement in the conflict.

Will the Council under the Greek Presidency state if it intends to pursue the possibility of appointing an EU Special Representative to Nepal to mediate between the government of Nepal and the Maoists, and will it further indicate what is the Council’s current thinking on increased international involvement in trying to find a way to resolve the conflict?

(EN) The Council is increasingly concerned with the deteriorating security situation and the violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Nepal. In its declaration issued on 18 December 2002, the EU stressed the need for an "assertive reform and development agenda underlining the imperative need to tackle poverty, exclusion and discrimination, poor governance including corruption as the root causes of the conflict". The European Union feels that significant reform cannot be carried out in the absence of rule of law in an atmosphere of impunity and fear.

On the same occasion, the EU unreservedly condemned the ongoing insurgency and the increasing outrages and called on the Maoists to immediately stop the systematic campaign of killings, harassment and destruction.

The EU is prepared to contribute to international efforts towards stabilising the security situation, defusing the crisis, promoting confidence-building measures, assisting to reach a peaceful settlement to the conflict, and supporting a lasting solution. At this stage, however, the Council is not considering the question of an EU Special Representative for Nepal.

The Presidency will be aware of the mid-term evaluation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004) published on 4 November 2002 by the Commission in which it expressed concern at the continued high levels of drug misuse, drugs trafficking and the damage caused to societies through drug-related crime, health problems and social exclusion. Taking into account the conclusions and proposals in the Commission’s evaluation and the views of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers who met in Denmark last September and who emphasised the dangers of synthetic drugs, will the Greek Presidency outline what preparations it is now making to establish an EU position in advance of the holding of the 46th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs which is due to be held in April 2003?

(EN) The preparation for the 46th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs has started in the competent Council bodies in Brussels and in Vienna but it is still at a preliminary stage. The session that is to be held from 8 to 17 April 2003 has a ministerial segment on 16/17 April 2003 at which difficulties encountered in meeting the goals and targets set out in the Political Declaration adopted by the General Assembly at its 20th special session in June 1998, will be discussed.

In the preparation for the statements of the Presidency at the regular session as well as at the ministerial segment, due account will be given to the orientations contained in the note on the mid-term evaluation of the European Union Action Plan on Drugs. This note reports a need for increased attention to the growing threat posed by production and consumption of synthetic drugs.

With regard to the ministerial segment of the 46th session of the UN Committee on Narcotic Drugs, the draft statement proposal includes specific points on the consumption and trafficking in synthetic drugs as well as on precursors.

As far as the regular session is concerned, specific steps taken within the framework of the Horizontal Working Party on drugs might lead to a joint E.U. position on synthetics, taking into account the draft recommendations by the Greek Presidency on "early intervention to prevent drug dependence, associated risks and criminality among young people using drugs". The recommendations are based on scientific evidence indicating that synthetic drugs use involves important risks for both physical and mental health. Special attention is given to young people at an early-stage of substance use-experimentation, occasional, recreational or circumstantial use.

The Greek Presidency intends to organise a special EU meeting on the profiling of precursors with the participation of experts (forensic scientists) from Member States which will be held in the margin of the Horizontal Drugs Group (probably in March).

With regard to follow-up of the midterm evaluation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004) the Greek Presidency in co-operation with the European Commission is considering to set specific targets in order to implement the activities related to synthetics.

The Commission has made it clear and I share its view that the development of a real prevention culture in the area of health and safety at work is particularly important. This incorporates the need to integrate health and safety issues in the education curricula from an early age and throughout school. Does the Greek Presidency share this point of view and, if so, how does the Greek Presidency together with the other Member States plan to promote the desired prevention culture, particularly in relation to the education curricula and school life?

(EN) The Council thanks the honourable Member for his question and refers him to Article 149(1) of the Treaty which states that the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging co-operation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.

The Council, in its resolution of 3 June 2002 on a new Community strategy on health and safety at work (2002-2006) ⁽¹⁾, stated that the European social model is based on a smoothly operating economy, on a high level of social protection and education and on social dialogue, which involve improving quality of employment with particular reference to health and safety at work. It also noted that, in order to instil a culture of prevention and influence behaviour, it is necessary to promote a prevention culture right from the earliest stages of education. The Council therefore called on the Member States to instil a real culture of prevention by, inter alia, including basic occupational prevention principles in educational curricula and further training schemes.

In the same resolution, the Council further noted the need to promote the inclusion of health and safety at work in other Community policies and that, in that connection, it will be necessary to develop a co-ordinated approach with other policies pursuing protection objectives and based on preventive measures, especially, inter alia, education policy.

Can the Council report the precise state of progress of negotiations in the Council on the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on action by Member States concerning public service requirements and the award of public service contracts in passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterway?

(EN) The Council informs the honourable Member that the Council examined in detail the original Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on action by Member States concerning public service requirements and the award of public service contracts in passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterway during the Swedish Presidency in the first semester of 2001. The examination was resumed under the Spanish Presidency in the first semester of 2002, after the amended Commission proposal was presented. This work could however not be concluded.

As regards the future handling of the proposal, the Council underlines that - once the examination of the proposed Regulation will be continued - a number of key issues on which delegations' views still diverge will have to be tackled.

It has been reported in the Greek press that counterfeit euro notes (mainly in denominations of 10, 20, 50 and 100 euros) have been found in all kinds of enterprises - both large and small - throughout Greece, especially over the last five months. According to recent reports, there are even counterfeit 5 euro notes in circulation. In December 2002 alone two thousand counterfeit banknotes were seized, half the total number seized during the whole of last year. It should be borne in mind that Greek enterprises have been forced to obtain special counterfeit money detection pens and optical readers, thereby incurring additional costs. However, this method is not entirely reliable, since this equipment is 'fooled' by genuine, but very worn, banknotes; the person bearing the notes is then put to a lot of trouble without being in any way to blame. For in Greece whenever a counterfeit banknote is found, the bearer is immediately taken to the police station where the procedure for in flagrante crimes is initiated, even if he was unaware that he was using counterfeit notes.

What immediate measures does the Council intend to take, in cooperation with the European Central Bank, to provide a radical response to the phenomenon of counterfeit euro banknotes which come from counterfeiting workshops both within and outside the European Union?

(EN) First of all it should be recalled that, in accordance with the competencies laid down in the Treaty, in particular in Art. 106 thereof and in Art. 16 of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB, it is not for the Council but for the ECB to lay down the design features, which include the necessary anti-counterfeit features, of the banknotes issued by the ECB and the national central banks.

This being said, it should be underlined that, according to the recent report of the Commission on the practical experience gained with one year of circulation of Euro banknotes and coins (doc. COM(2002) 747 final), counterfeiting of Euro notes and coins has, since their introduction as from 1.1.2002, taken place at a much smaller scale than what was previously experienced with national banknotes and coins. According to the relevant statistics of the ECB, only 22.000 false Euro banknotes were discovered during the first six months of 2002 constituting only + 7 % of the total of false national notes discovered during the same period of 2001.

Furthermore, this number of 22.000 discovered false Euro notes (of which 65 % 50 Euro notes) has to be compared with the total number of 59 million Euro note in circulation.

As confirmed by the above Commission report, this seemingly satisfactory state of affairs is due to the sophisticated safety features, which protect the Euro notes, and coins against counterfeiting.

Thus the present anti-counterfeit features of Euro banknotes provided by the ECB seem to have proven themselves satisfactory.

According to AFP, on the 9 January 2003 the Egyptian police arrested a 30-year-old man after chatting with him on an Internet website he had set up to seek potential partners. Police, in an undercover operation, chatted with the man over the Internet passing themselves off as a potential gay lover and arranged to meet with him. At the meeting place, they arrested him. On 22 December, another Egyptian citizen, a gay dentist who had created a similar website, was arrested in the same manner. Furthermore on 25 January, the Egyptians rounded up in May 2001 at an evening boat party on the Nile and accused of gay acts will appear for another hearing in their retrial. What initiatives did and will the Council take on the repeated and serious violation of citizens' fundamental rights in Egypt on grounds of sexual orientation? Did the Council express EU concern on these new arrests to the Egyptian authorities? Is the Council following the hearings of the Queen Boat trial?

(FR) The Council has followed the Queen Boat case and is continuing to study it closely. It is paying particular attention to the retrial of the 50 or so people charged.

The European Union believes that the signature of the Association Agreement with Egypt has brought a new dimension to our relations with the country. This allows for dialogue on the subject of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Consequently, the heads of mission on the ground, as a troika, initiated a dialogue with the Egyptian authorities. They expressed their particular concern about cases relating to homosexuality. They emphasised that universal and internationally recognised values are at issue in such cases. The Egyptian side responded stating that homosexuality is not illegal in Egypt but that the arrests in the Queen Boat case had been made on the grounds of public prostitution and provocation, including use of the Internet.

The Council will continue to follow the case closely and to defend the values and principles on which the European Union is founded.

Would the Council provide an update on progress made in Council on the proposal for a Council regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility?

Does the Presidency-in-Office agree that this regulation can only be effective if Member States are committed to its implementation?

(FR) The Council informs the author of the question that detailed examination is in course of the proposal submitted by the Commission on 6 May 2002 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 and amending Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 with regard to maintenance payments.

This proposal was submitted following the debate on the initiative submitted by France on 3 July 2000 aiming to abolish the exequatur for the party to a decision on parental responsibility covered by Regulation 1347/2000, concerning visiting rights, and in response to the Commission's initial proposal of 7 September 2001.

At its meeting of 28 and 29 November 2002, the Council reached an agreement on one of the most complex elements of the proposal, i.e. that relating to child abduction. The solution that met with consensus proposes, notably, arrangements for ascertaining whether the jurisdictions of the Member State in which a minor is habitually resident retain their competence in cases where a child has been illegally removed or has not been returned, and the conditions that should be verified in cases where a decision on non-return of a child has been made in the Member State in which the child is present after being illegally removed or not returned.

To this effect, it is proposed that there should be a specific procedure for cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, notably where a decision on non-return has been made by a jurisdiction of the Member State in which the child is present after being illegally removed or not returned.

In addition, reference to the 1980 Hague Convention is proposed for the procedures for returning a child who has been illegally removed or not returned. Also proposed are specific provisions for reinforcing the effectiveness of the Hague Convention at Community level.

Finally, it is proposed that a subsequent decision of a jurisdiction in the Member State of habitual residence of the child should be recognised and executed in another Member State without a prior requirement of a declaration recognising its executability and without any possibility of opposing recognition if the decision has been certified in the Member State where it was made.

The Council expects substantial progress to be made in 2003 with a view to the regulation being adopted this year.

The Greek Presidency has launched discussions in the relevant committee of the Council on the scope of the regulation and the definitions contained in it, as well as on cooperation between the competent authorities in the Member States. It believes that a political agreement on the proposal as a whole should be possible during its term of office.

Is the President-in-Office aware of religious discrimination against the Eastern Rite Catholic Church in Romania and the failure of the Romanian authorities to give protection to their property and their right to worship?

(EN) The Council attaches the utmost importance to the respect, by the candidate countries, of human rights, including religious freedom. With regard to Romania, the Council notes that the Commission's 2002 Regular Report on Romania's progress towards accession, which was issued in October 2002, has concluded that, in general, Romania continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria and has made progress since 1997 in consolidating and deepening the stability of its institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for the protection of minorities. The findings of the Commission were endorsed by the Brussels European Council on 24/25 October 2002.

As regards the specific issue raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Regular Report states that freedom of religion in Romania is guaranteed by the Constitution and is observed in practice. There is however a particular issue concerning the property of churches. In this regard, the Report notes that " In July 2002, Parliament adopted legislation that clarified the process of restituting property confiscated from churches. The legislation extends the scope of the previous law in several important respects. However, only church property is covered and there is presently no legal framework for the restitution of actual churches. This is a particularly important issue for the Greek-Catholic Church which had a large number of properties confiscated by the Communist regime but still has no legal redress. The Government has committed itself to producing specific legislation on this issue but delays in preparing such a law means that there has been no substantial progress."

The Presidency would like to assure the Honourable Parliamentarian that the Union will continue to monitor the situation in Romania in the framework of the pre-accession strategy and, should the need arise, will discuss the matter with the Romanian side, in particular within the bodies established by the Europe Agreement such as the Association Council and Association Committee.

When Development Ministers met in the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 10 December there was confusion regarding when the national Development Ministers should be present to be included in the discussion.

For the meetings of 18 March and 19 May, can the President-in-Office confirm which items are expected to be included as Development issues, confirm what arrangements will be made to make it clear to Development Ministers when they should be present, and identify what criteria will be used to determine which items will be treated under the Development agenda?

(EN) The decisions adopted by the European Council in Seville in June 2002 answered the need for the EU to adjust its decision-making structures in view of the forthcoming enlargement. The heads of State or government decided to reduce the number of Council formations and to integrate all matters relating to the Union's external actions within the new General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC). This decision aims at accommodating the objective of enhancing coherence between the components of the Union's external policies, while at the same time avoiding the risk of breaking up policy domains such as development co-operation.

The integration of development in this enlarged political forum should be considered as beneficial for development policy. By integrating development in this new structure the Council stresses the important role development plays as part of the EU external policy. The GAERC constitutes also an important effort to strengthen the EU's capacity to respond to development needs in a more coherent manner.

The Greek Presidency of the Council attaches great importance to fully implementing the Seville decisions, continuing what had already been done after Seville, i.e. to concentrate the agenda items on developmental co-operation at one or two sessions of the GAERC. It has planned an Orientation Debate to examine ways and means to further improve the efficiency of external actions of the EU. At the session of 19 and 20 May 2003, among others, development issues such as untying of aid as a way to enhance the effectiveness of aid, integrating migration issues into the EU's external relations with third countries and the participation of non-state actors in EC development policy, are planned for discussion.

The Presidency, which is responsible for the organisation of work of the Council, will take the necessary practical steps to allow Member States to decide in the best and more suitable conditions, upon the composition of their delegation including the possibility to invite Development Ministers to fully take part in these discussions for that purpose and as laid down in Article 3 of the Council's rules of procedure, the draft agendas of the sessions of the GAERC will be established by the Presidency at least 14 days before the meetings.

The priorities of the Presidency are well known in the European Parliament and in the Council in all aspects, including development policy.

Does the Council believe that an EU citizen can have a fair trial in another EU Member State if documentation relating to the case is not provided in the language of the accused?

(EN) The Council has a responsibility, when it adopts any measures, to ensure their compatibility with international human rights standards, including standards on fair trials. In several recent acts in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal and civil matters the Council has ensured that procedural documentation will be drawn up or translated in a language which the addressee understands.

However, it is not for the Council to express itself about the conduct of individual proceedings in Member States.

Why was the regulation abolishing duty on weapons imports, proposed by the European Commission in 1988⁽¹⁾, adopted without debate by the ECOFIN Council on 21 January, when it was discussed at Council level, and what elements of the original proposal have been amended and why?

(EN) The Regulation suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equipment was formally adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003 after a political agreement had been reached in the Permanent Representatives Committee in December. As the honourable Member of Parliament points out, the Commission's proposal was presented already in 1988 but it was not until the second half of last year, under the Danish Presidency, that efforts to bring this matter to a final and successful outcome.

With regard to the elements amended compared to the initial proposal, the honourable Member's attention is drawn in particular to the scope of products covered by the Regulation. In the proposal from 1988 it was foreseen to grant tariff suspension to products contained in an 8-digit CN code list.

This list was modified to a 4-digit CN code list and at the same time it was spelled out clearly by which national authority the goods would have to be imported and that they had to be used by or on behalf of the military forces of a Member State. All these modifications have been introduced in order to clarify to the maximum extent possible the scope of products and the conditions under which they would be covered by the Regulation.

One of the priorities of the Greek Presidency is to promote the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. What specific actions does the Council intend to take to strengthen and promote this process?

Does it intend to take any initiatives relating to the newly established Euro-Mediterranean Investment Mechanism, and how does it intend to strengthen it as the appropriate structure for encouraging investment activity in the Mediterranean region?

There have been exceptional delays in implementing the First Regional Programme to promote the participation of women in economic and social life and development (decided by the Belgian Presidency in 2001). Does it intend to take specific initiatives to expedite it?

(EN)

1. The Euromed partnership has shown its resilience and has allowed its participants to engage into an open dialogue on all the issues of common interest. The Greek Presidency has indicated its intention to give special priority to the implementation of the Valencia Action Plan. This Plan was adopted by the Euro-Mediterranean conference of Foreign Ministers held in Valencia on 22-23 April 2002 which allowed for a renewed mutual commitment with the aim to give a greater depth to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The Action Plan adopted by the Conference gave a political impetus to the process and aimed at contributing substantially to the pursuit of the objectives of the Barcelona Declaration reinforcing the sense of co-ownership of the partnership. In the area of the dialogue of cultures an Action Programme was adopted and the principle of the creation of an Euro-Mediterranean Foundation was agreed. Furthermore, the regional co-operation programme in the field of Justice, in combating drugs, organised crime and terrorism as well as co-operation in the treatment of issues relating to the social integration of migrants, migration and movement of persons adopted in Valencia, will be implemented during this year.

2. As regards financial assistance, the new Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), established within the EIB to promote infrastructure and private sector investment, was launched in Barcelona on 18 October 2002 and started its operations. The incorporation of an EIB majority-owned subsidiary dedicated to the Mediterranean partner countries will be considered one year after the launching of the Facility.

3. During the Greek Presidency a mid-term Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Foreign Ministers that will be held in Crete on 26/27 May 2003 will be an opportunity to take stock of the progress made in the implementation of the Valencia Action Plan and to give fresh impetus to the work of the partnership in the run-up to the evaluation scheduled for the Naples Ministerial meeting in December 2003.This Conference will also be attended by the 8 acceding States which are not yet members of the Barcelona Process and will provide an opportunity for political discussions of how the Euro-Mediterranean partnership will be enhanced following enlargement. The 3rd Ministerial Energy Conference, which will be held on 20-21 May in Athens, will set out the framework for a new Euro-Mediterranean Action Plan on Energy. Furthermore, the Greek Presidency will facilitate the establishment of an Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly.

4. On the bilateral level, relations of the Mediterranean partners with the EU have progressed significantly. During the Greek Presidency 2002, the interim Agreement between the Community and Lebanon will enter into force on 1st March. Two negotiating sessions with Syria will be held. An Association Council with Morocco was held on 24 February and a ministerial meeting with Egypt as well as a Troika meeting with Algeria are foreseen in June. These are important developments for the fulfilment of the objectives of the Barcelona Declaration as well as the reinforcement of the South-South co-operation in the Mediterranean region.

5. As regards enhancing opportunities for women in economic life, the relevant programme is included in the list of programmes to be launched in the 2002-2004 period under MEDA Regional Cooperation. Following information provided by Europe-Aid of the Commission, the regional programme which will focus on access and participation of women in the labour market as well as the promotion of the role of women in business, will be launched during 2004.The Commission has indicated that the necessary procedures for the choice of the consultants that will be in charge of the programme will be finalised during the first half 2003.

It has been reported recently that the Commission has proposed new laws to tackle the increasing volumes of counterfeit goods which are entering the EU illegally. The health and safety of European citizens is at risk, particularly from counterfeiting in medicine, car parts and toiletries. As it has been acknowledged that the main source of these counterfeit products is Eastern Europe, including some of the accession countries, what measures does the Council intend to take to deal with potentially dangerous counterfeit goods coming from the accession countries and what measures will be taken against accession countries which do not enforce the necessary measures?

(EN) The Council underlines that, already during the pre-accession period, in the context of the bodies set up by the Europe Agreements with the candidate countries, and on the basis of the provisions foreseen in these agreements, the issue of the protection of intellectual, industrial and commercial property rights has consistently been addressed with the candidates by the EU.

With EU membership, acceding countries are taking over all obligations stemming from the Treaties. As underlined by the European Council in Copenhagen, monitoring up to accession of the commitments undertaken will give further guidance to the acceding states in their efforts to assume responsibilities of membership and will give the necessary assurance to current Member States. The Council will continue to closely follow these issues, in particular on the basis of the monitoring reports the Commission will present.

If a new Member State failed to live up to its obligations, for instance in relation to combating counterfeiting, the infringement procedures foreseen in the Treaties would apply. In addition, in order to respond rapidly to unforeseen developments that may arise during the first years after accession, safeguard clauses have been enshrined in the Treaty and Act of Accession that provide for measures to deal with these developments in a rapid an efficient manner. Two specific safeguard clauses concern the operation of the internal market, including all sectoral policies that concern activities with a cross-border effect, and the area of justice and home affairs.

These safeguard clauses will permit the Union to adopt proportional measures for addressing cases where new Member States fail to implement their obligations, and are aimed at ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market and the justice and home affairs area, which is in the interest of all Member States, current as well as new. Indeed, these are issues of particular concern to the citizens of the EU, as they cover areas such as food safety, safe medicinal products, or human trafficking.

The coordinating committee of the movement for the disabled organised a protest march on Sunday, 26 January against the social policy of the Greek Government and the EU, demanding uniform, public, free and high-quality health and welfare provision, insurance for all, public support facilities for the severely disabled, jobs for the disabled capable of working, and public special educational facilities. The march was to have passed by the building in which the Greek Presidency was holding the official inauguration ceremony for the Year of the Disabled. It proved impossible to do so, however, because the marchers were prevented by a strong and heavily armed police presence on the orders of the Greek Government.

Does the Council intend to take measures to meet the demands of disabled people? Does such unacceptable treatment of disabled people by a police force which outnumbered the demonstrators, and the break-up of a totally peaceful march form part of a more general plan for dealing with demonstrations, particularly during a country's Presidency?

(FR) The Council would remind the honourable Member that pursuant to the Treaty each Member State is responsible for ensuring the maintenance of public order on its territory.

Consequently, the Council is not competent to answer the honourable Member’s question. Further, it must assure him that no global strategy of the type he describes was implemented to deal with the demonstrations referred to.

In this connection, the Council would emphasise that the decision to designate 2003 as the European Year of Disabled Persons was specifically intended to promote implementation of the principles of non-discrimination and integration of disabled persons. The Council believes that this European Year should serve as a catalyst to raise public awareness and improve society’s understanding of the rights, needs and potential of disabled persons.

The Commission is planning to implement the Erika legislation on the basis of the original texts (which laid down stricter rules designed to make Community waters safe) and by tightening up what has already been adopted by Parliament and the Council. It has also heeded calls from the College of Commissioners for specific EU legislation similar to that drawn up by the USA in response to the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska. On the other hand the Council (as demonstrated by the agreements reached at the Council of Transport Ministers with the involvement of the Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar) has rejected such an approach, since it wishes EU legislation to continue to be determined by the IMO – a body which offers certain Member States with interests in the maritime sector a better base from which to protect the status quo, thereby allowing the oil companies and a ragbag of international transport groups and mafias to hold sway. Is the Council aware that the Member States and the Commission hold contradictory views which are delaying the implementation of strict, effective laws designed to bring safety to the seas – this being a matter which, on account of the Prestige disaster off the coast of Galicia, has become urgent in the extreme? What action is the Council going to take in order to resolve this political conflict?

(FR) The Council would remind the honourable Member that it has already had the opportunity of giving a full account of its position and intentions regarding the transport of hazardous material by sea and of assessing the present situation. This took place in the December plenary at Strasbourg and during the debate on topical issues. The Council would point again to the content of the Presidency conclusions on this issue following the Copenhagen European Council from12 to 13 December 2002 and to the December 2002 Council conclusions.

The Council confirms its previous statements and invites the honourable Member to approach the Commission directly concerning the latter’s position on the subject.

The Council is currently examining the Commission proposal concerning the accelerated phasing-out of single-hull tankers and a prohibition of single-hull tankers carrying heavy grades of oil from entering the ports of Member States. The proposal was presented by the Commission on 27 December 2002 in response to the said Council conclusions.

The Council deems it important to have international measures responding to the international character of the shipping industry and with the aim of ensuring globally the highest possible levels of maritime safety and the protection of the environment. For this reason, the Council attaches great importance to the adoption also at international level, through the IMO, of rules reinforcing maritime security. With this objective, the Council conclusions in response to the Prestige accident also invited Member States and the Commission to make every effort to eliminate older single-hull vessels transporting heavy grades of oil through an amendment of the MARPOL Convention and expressed its support for the development in the IMO of a flag State code and a compulsory model audit scheme to ensure that flag States carry out their duties.

A Statute of European political parties will shortly be presented. It is proposed that EUR 7 million per calendar year will be allocated to fund such parties.

Does the Council deem that amount to be appropriate? Once the Statute has been adopted, does the Council expect the amount to be increased? How will the Council prevent arbitrary increases from being made which will have to be paid for by the European taxpayer?

(FR) The Council would remind the honourable Member that, within the framework of the 2003 budgetary procedure, EUR 7 million has been allocated as reserve in line B-3-500 by the budgetary authority.

It will be for the budgetary authority to determine the amount deemed appropriate for this line within the framework of the budgetary procedure for the 2004 financial year.

On 21 February 2003 the Commission transmitted to the Council its new draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the statute and financing of European political parties [COM(2003)77 final, adopted on 19 February 2003]. This complied with the new legal basis, arising from the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice on 1 February 2003.

Turkey is a candidate for accession to the European Union. As part of the accession process, it is required to comply with specific procedures in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria.

What is the Council's position on the fact that in Turkey - in addition to the many other violations of democratic and human rights - the constitution continues to ban any party whose name contains the word 'communist', and what measures will the Council take in this regard?

(EN) The provisions of the Turkish constitution on political parties do not contain a reference to a ban of parties with the word "communist" in their name. The Council is not aware of a current ban or dissolution of a Turkish political party, or of such a threat, based on the word "communist" in the name of the party.

At the Copenhagen European Council, the EU strongly welcomed the important steps taken by Turkey towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria, in particular through the recent legislative reforms and subsequent implementation measures. It can among other be noted in this regard that the amended article 101 of the law on political parties makes it more difficult to close down a political party.

The EU continues to monitor closely the situation in Turkey in the field of freedom of opinion and of association. In the context of the accession process and of the political dialogue, it presses Turkey to make further progress towards guaranteeing full enjoyment of fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and irrespective in particular of political opinion or philosophical belief, as stipulated in the accession partnership.

Fishing for transparent goby is carried out in the sea off Livorno, at present by way of derogation from Regulation (EC) 1626/94⁽¹⁾. The derogation is due to expire on 31 December 2003. Since official research carried out by the Italian Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry Policy indicates that this kind of activity has no adverse effect on the environment, does the Commission not consider that it should intervene and recognise this type of fishing as an authorised activity compatible with the Community legislation in question? In view of the latest guidelines on fisheries policy and since it has been ascertained that this kind of fishing and the fishing gear used - the ‘sciabichello’ (small trawl-net) - do not in any way jeopardise environmental protection and the conservation of a particular species, does the Commission not consider that it should declare this activity lawful, not least because the uncertainty and insecurity caused by the extension of a derogation already granted are damaging fishing in the Livorno area? If it is not already aware of the problem, can the Commission assure Parliament that it will tackle the issue as a matter of urgency and report back to Parliament without delay?

(DE) The question relates to fishing for transparent goby, which is practised in many parts of the Mediterranean, using towed nets in shallow waters. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries has examined the data provided by the national authorities, the Italian authorities among them, and published its conclusions in its twelfth report, which is before Parliament. According to these, fishing for transparent goby does not endanger other species of fish, but can damage sensitive seabeds.

The Commission will shortly be elaborating new rules for the use of such towed nets, and will be doing so on the basis of the scientific report and following consultation with interest groups, for which purpose it will be organising a workshop in mid-April, at which the necessary measures will be discussed with fishermen and scientists.

Could the Commission indicate which studies it drew on when drawing up the part of its proposal on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy which relates to the decoupling of direct aid and to modulation?

Could it also indicate whether these studies were conducted at regional level on Objective 1 producer areas and regions?

Could it indicate whether socio-economic and environmental impact assessments have been carried out in the regions affected by the reform of the CAP, - and more specifically in Objective 1 regions?

(EN) The Commission proposals for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy with regard to the decoupling of payments and modulation has been established on the basis of several internal analyses.

First of all, the introduction of a single income payment has been the subject of several quantitative analyses using the internal modelling tools regarding its impact for the agricultural markets and income for the current Union and for an enlarged Union.

The modulation proposal and its impact on the agricultural sector has been analysed using the micro-economic models based on the Farm Accountancy Data Network of Directorate General Agriculture.

The results of these internal studies have been complemented by four external studies carried out by independent experts on the impact of the Mid-Term Review proposals from July 2002.

If these analyses have been carried out either at Community level, national level or regional level (i.e. Nuts 2 level), none of them attempted to examine the specific issue of Objective 1 regions.

Only one of these sector analyses analysed the impact of the reform proposals on the environment (notably for global warming emissions and nitrate surpluses), at regional level.

In recent years, Greece has suffered a succession of natural disasters. Greek farmers are complaining about the delay in paying them compensation. Meanwhile, the government is paying out advances of some 50% from the resources of the Community Support Framework to compensate farmers.

To what are the delays attributable? In which cases is authorisation from the Commission to provide state aid still pending and what are the risks associated with paying advances from the CSF if the Commission has not be informed thereof?

(FR)

1. The payment delays are due in part to the fact that Greece wishes some arrangements for compensating farmers to be financed from two sources, namely state aid and the so-called National Operational Programme – Rural Development (2000-2006) set up within the framework of the third Community Support Framework for Greece (CSF). They therefore have to be examined under two different sets of regulations.

With regard to state aid, substantial modification of the method of calculating losses used to determine the sums farmers are entitled to was required to deal with the Greek dossiers. This took some time, though it should be emphasised that all the dossiers were dealt with within the time limits laid down in Council Regulation (EC) n° 659/99⁽¹⁾. Furthermore, for all the dossiers examined, the changes to the aforementioned method of calculation called for modification of the draft Greek interministerial decision constituting the legal basis for the compensation system. For each case, the Commission had to check the new versions of the interministerial decisions to ensure the changes agreed with the Greek authorities had been transcribed correctly. Following this check, the Greek authorities were authorised to make payments of approved national aid. The use of cofinanced funds was dealt with by a separate decision, as stated in paragraph 3 below.

2. With regard to the outstanding dossiers, the only system on which the Commission has yet to rule is the one on compensation for Greek farmers affected by the fires in the year 2000.

3. With regard to the use of funds from the National Operational Programme – Rural Development set up within the framework of the third CSF for Greece, the Greek authorities should have submitted information on an amendment to the programme. This involved so-called restructuring of the financial tables and should have been submitted prior to the payments being made. It must be emphasised that the programme is intended to support rural development in the country and that unlimited transfer of funds to compensation is likely to be detrimental to its other activities. At this stage, it is difficult to ascertain whether the payment of advances could have legal implications. This is because the Commission is not yet fully informed of the precise use to which the funds were put. It could have been reconstruction or compensation for loss of income. The Commission will only be in possession of this information once the restructuring referred to above has been completed and it has received the draft modification of the programme in question.

The severe weather which Greece suffered recently destroyed a large part of agricultural production, caused damage to animals and crops in the country and highlighted the weaknesses and poor quality of infrastructure, particularly roads.

Does the Commission intend to contribute to repairing the damage, using existing or new resources from the Community budget and will it take measures to ensure more effective quality control of the plans and projects in order to guarantee local residents that, in the event of a recurrence of similar weather, they will not again fall victim to shoddy work and substandard planning?

(EN)

1. The Commission has received a letter from Minister Christodoulakis (Minister for Economy and Finance) addressed to the Member of the Commission in charge of Regional Policy, dated February 20th 2003, announcing the intention of the Greek Authorities to submit a request of assistance by the Solidarity Fund of the European Union ; the Commission has not received any information or request concerning the destruction of the agricultural production caused by the adverse weather conditions that took place there recently.

2. On the basis of the current regulatory framework, the Commission would like to inform the honourable Member that Community financial grants that might be necessary to overcome the specific problems of Greek rural areas can be taken from the total appropriations of the 3rd Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece (2000-06), including its programming reserve. It should be emphasised that European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guidance intervention will be limited to the reconstruction of production potential and not to compensate income losses for which such assistance may be given by national funding under the prerequisite of the notification of such State Aids and the Commission approval.

Within this framework, it is up to Greece to submit to the Commission such requests based on objective parameters to support appropriate projects for the reconstruction of production potential and to ensure the quality of the construction works. This responsibility falls to the Member State concerned.

3. The CSF 2000-2006 for Greece provides that the Greek Authorities establish an appropriate scheme monitoring the quality of the studies and of the execution of the works. This scheme should also allow the Managing Authorities of the operational programmes to monitor the quality of the studies, and it foresees the establishment of technical assistance to help final beneficiaries to raise their design capacity.

ESPEL (The Hellenic Quality Control Organism) has also been established by the Greek authorities and has been monitoring the execution of construction projects to prevent low quality work and breaches of legislation since 1998.

In any case, it is up to the Greek Authorities to ensure that the construction of projects co-financed by the structural funds of the Community is of high quality and is done on the basis of adequate studies, including geotechnical studies for road works.

In the case of failure after extreme weather conditions, of roads or other projects co-financed by Community funds, it is on the basis of analyses to be carried out by the responsible Greek authorities, that the exact reasons of the failure can be defined.

The Commission will be in contact with the responsible Greek authorities, and will be informed on the results of these analyses, for follow-up purposes.

The Commission proposes to create, within the rural development chapter, a new budget heading for aid for the promotion of agricultural products intended for producers who are already participating in national or Community quality programmes (such as those concerning designations of origin). At the same time, it proposes to put an end to the existing Regulation (EC) 2826/2000⁽¹⁾ on the promotion of agricultural products, despite the fact that the measures covered by that regulation are totally different from those financed under the rural development chapter. Should this proposal take effect, it would mean the end of the now highly successful general campaigns in, for instance, the citrus fruit sector, which are promoting the gastronomic and health aspects of the products concerned. It would also remove eligibility for Community aid from large numbers of farmers who are not covered by quality labels, ecological agriculture labels or other forms of certification. Aids would be channelled exclusively through associations, thus excluding the interprofessional organisations, despite their important role in promoting cohesion. Can the Commission explain how it intends to deal with this problem? Given that no additional funds will be forthcoming for rural development until 2006, can the Commission state how it intends to finance the new measure?

(EN) The Commission thanks the honourable Member for raising this question which relates to the proposal contained in the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform package to introduce a new measure for promotion of quality food products within the current ‘menu’ of measures eligible for support under the 2nd Pillar. Linked to the introduction of this new measure the Commission is proposing to repeal from 1 January 2005 Regulation 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market⁽²⁾.

The Commission has proposed the repeal of this regulation to avoid any scope for overlap or duplication between the two instruments. The Commission also considers it is appropriate and coherent to focus its promotion support on the internal market on quality products as indicated in the proposal amending Regulation 1257/1999⁽³⁾, given that increasing the focus on food quality in order to better respond to consumer requirement is an underlying theme of the CAP reform proposals overall.

While it is correct that the scope and beneficiaries of the two instruments indeed cannot be identical, the Member of the Commission in charge of Agriculture does not agree with the honourable Member that there is no scope for duplication between them. Promotion activities concerning Community schemes for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications, guaranteed traditional specialities and quality wines could, for example, potentially be eligible under either of the two instruments.

The proposed repeal of Regulation 2826/2000 has already been the subject of discussion with Member States in the Council Working Group, with several expressing reservations notably because, as the honourable Member correctly indicates, following the outcome of the Brussels Summit no additional financing will be available for the 2nd Pillar until 2007.

Under the Commission proposal generic promotion will not be discarded, but will henceforth be concentrated on activities in third countries’ markets where Community is facing strong competition from other exporters in all quality categories. Inter-professional organisations will continue to be able to benefit from these measures.

Can the Commission outline its immediate plans to reduce dolphin deaths from incidental by-catch and make some commitment about when these plans should be in place? Does the Commission have a long-term strategy in mind to deal with this issue?

(DE) Under the terms of the habitats directive the Member States are required to take suitable measures to prevent by-catches of dolphins.

The Commission has therefore decided to tackle the problem of by-catches of dolphins in the context of the common fisheries policy. It is working on a proposal for a regulation laying down measures to monitor and prevent by-catches of maritime mammals.

With that aim in view, the Commission has obtained an expert report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and consulted the Scientific and Technical Fisheries Committee and the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

On the basis of that document and those talks, the Commission will put forward the following proposals:

restrictions will be imposed on the length of driftnets used in the Baltic Sea;

fishermen will be required to use acoustic equipment in conjunction with certain gillnets;

trawlers will be required to carry observers in certain fishing areas where the risk of by-catches is high.

The Commission will complete the drafting of this proposal at the latest within the next three months.

The Commission also endorses the views of those scientists calling for a long-term strategy to combat by-catches. To that end, we must lay down limit values for by-catches of maritime mammals and take specially tailored measures as soon as those limit values are exceeded. However, important data fundamental to such a strategy are lacking at present.

That information will be collected with the help of the observers referred to above.

In a recent statement, Commissioner Fischler described the Harbinson report on agriculture to the WTO as 'unbalanced', with minimal reform of export subsidies and favouring US agriculture. If the Commission fails to tighten the loopholes that exist in the present Harbinson report, which could result in the 'de minimis' clause being used to give up to $7.5 billion in farm subsidies to American agriculture per year, would the Commission agree that it is unfair to proceed with the proposed CAP reform?

(EN) The Community is not alone in considering that the de minimis loophole cannot continue to be accepted as it provides a means for the United States to unduly increase its trade distorting subsidies. Nor do the Community or many others accept that only direct export subsidies be further reduced, without equivalent disciplines for other forms of export support such as export credits or abusive use of food aid to dispose of surpluses. The Commission has made these points loud and clear, to Mr. Harbinson and to the entire World Trade Organisation (WTO) membership.

With regard to Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, the proposals made by the Commission are dictated entirely by Community internal interests, which require a strengthening of the European agricultural model in order to better respond to societal concerns and improve the income prospects of Community farmers as well as their standing in public opinion. The Commission will continue to pursue this reform, in the best interests of European farmers.

While the Commission estimates that organic farming has grown by 30% a year since 1998, a EUROSTAT survey released on 17 February estimates that the numbers practising this type of farming are still very small, i.e. less than 2% of all farmers. Does the Commission believe that this low level of involvement in organic farming is partly due to insufficient training in this area and will it be dealing with this issue in the communication on a Community action plan on organic farming due for publication later this year?

(EN) Organic farming is a rapidly growing sector. Indeed, in many Member States, it is one of the farming sectors that, in sharp contrast with many other sectors, continues to expand. The existence of a legislative Community framework in this field⁽¹⁾ has no doubt contributed to this development.

Nevertheless, the sector is, as the honourable Member rightly observed, in absolute figures still relatively small. While an average of 2 % of the farmers in the Community use organic farming methods, the acreage they cultivate covers more than 3 % of the agricultural surface. But there are large differences between Member States. In Austria 9 % of the farmers and over 11 % of the acreage is dedicated to organic farming. In Finland, these figures have expanded beyond 5 and 7 %. Finally, in Greece and Ireland, less than 1 % of the farmers or the land is engaged in organic farming. So, there is still a lot to do, and more and better training will certainly be a key factor in the further development of the organic farming sector. This has been recognised in the Commission working paper on the possibility of a European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming. This document has been debated in the Council in December 2002, and has now been published on the Commission website for consultation of civil society at large. On the basis of the information received through the online consultation, and following discussion with Member States and other stakeholders, the Commission will develop the proposals for its final European Action Plan.

It is possible already now for Member States to support advisory services for organic farmers and for those conventional farmers who are considering converting to organic farming. Co-financing for these types of measures is already available under Rural Development⁽²⁾.

To conclude it should be underlined that, from the experience gained, it is clear that a successful development of organic farming depends on many factors. Training is an important element, but so are many others, all of which need to be addressed simultaneously to obtain the maximal synergy between the different efforts spent in separate areas.

Between July and October the Spanish fleet will be subject to a 45-day ban on fishing in the Gran Sol waters, so as to allow hake stocks to increase.

The fisheries sector is aware of the need for measures of a technical nature (such as this ban) as a means of protecting resources, in conjunction with the Commission's scrapping policy which has manifested itself once again in the form of the first amending budget recently submitted by the Commission. This will result in a further EUR 32 million (previously earmarked as support for the Community fishing industry) being allocated to the scrapping of vessels.

Since the ban in question is entirely necessary and since a partial ban applicable only to the Spanish fleet would be of limited effect, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that the French, Irish and UK fleets (which also fish for hake) observe the ban as well?

(DE) The Spanish Autonomous Community of Asturias has forwarded to the Commission an application for the temporary suspension of hake fishing activity. The Commission is currently examining this application.

This rule is a voluntary initiative on the part of the Spanish authorities, and it is therefore not possible to impose such a measure on other Member States as a matter of obligation. The only possible way of enacting a rule applicable to all Member States equally is, in the final analysis, the adoption of a recovery plan for hake.

The Commission submitted such a plan to Parliament and the Council as early as December 2001. The Council was unable to come to an agreement on this, however, and instead called on the Commission to submit a new plan. The Commission is currently engaged in elaborating this new plan and will be submitting it to Parliament and the Council in April 2003.

What decisions is the Commission in course of taking with a view to ensuring the extraction of the fuel oil still on board the 'Prestige'? What is the nature of its dialogue on the matter with the authorities of the Spanish state?

(EN) The honourable Member is invited to make reference to his previous written question N° E-3595/02.

The Commission adopted on 5 March 2003 a report concerning past, present and future actions undertaken at the Community level in order to remedy the consequences of the Prestige disaster and to prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future. This report will be submitted to the European Council of 21 March 2003.

Finally, the Commission is presently examining the Spanish authorities' application for financial assistance and has requested further information from Spain.

Following the announcement by the Hong Kong Government of substantial concessions in the implementation of the controversial anti-sedition laws (Article 23 legislation) after widespread public concern over the possible curtailment of basic freedoms in the territory, what plans does the European Commission have for monitoring developments in Hong Kong and ensuring that restrictions on freedom of religion and belief in China are a recurrent item on the agenda of the EU-China human rights dialogue?

(EN) Respect for freedom of expression, association and religion are central issues in the European Union’s human rights dialogue with China. These issues were raised once again at the most recent dialogue held on 5-6 March 2003 in Athens.

The Commission appreciates the political sensitivity of the legislative proposal based on Article 23 of Basic Law, which has been tabled by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government to Legislative Council on 14 February 2003. This is the most important legislative proposal since hand-over.

The Commission welcomes the fact that during the consultation period, a record number of submissions and signatures were introduced on important issues such as freedom of the press, the prescription mechanism and the definition of seditious publications.

The Commission hopes that HKSAR Government will keep its promise to take into account further comments of civil society during the legislative procedure in Parliament, thus further improving the draft law.

The ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle continues to work reasonably well, and Hong Kong, has preserved its rule of law, human rights, civil liberties and free and open society.

The Commission wholeheartedly supports the Parliament’s resolution of 19 December 2002 calling on HKSAR Government to ensure that Article 23 will not be used inter alia to silence opposition, restrict freedom of speech, of the press, on freedom of association.

The Commission will closely monitor further developments on this important issue, especially as regards eventual effects of future legislation in respect for human rights and civil liberties.

The Commission will continue to exert pressure on the Chinese authorities for improvements regarding respect for freedom of expression, association and religion for all groups of the Chinese population including practitioners of Falun Gong.

When Sweden became a member of the EU in 1995, a number of senior posts in the Commission were earmarked for Swedes. Unfortunately, since then, many Swedes have left the Commission with the result that there are currently only one Swedish Director-General and five Directors in post. Of the Commission's 25 000 employees, only 556 or 2.7% are Swedish. The Commission does not appear to have done very much to rectify this imbalance. It is now five years since the Commission organised any competition for Swedish nationals, which means in principle that it is now impossible for Swedes to obtain a post in the Commission.

What does the Commission intend to do to increase the proportion of Swedes in its administration?

(EN) Introduction

Article 27, paragraph 1 of Staff Regulation states that "recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Communities". Paragraph 3 of the same Article limits the Commission’s discretionary power to the extent that "no posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State".

Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995

As in previous enlargements, a time-limited derogation from the provisions of Article 27 was agreed by means of Council Regulation (EC) No 626/95 of 20 March 1995 which allowed the recruitment of nationals from Austria, Finland and Sweden through special and temporary measures until 31 December 1999.

In order to provide a fair and balanced representation of the new Member States in the Commission staff, the Commission Communication⁽¹⁾ of 19 July 1994 set recruitment targets for the three new Member States. For Sweden, 400-500 posts for non-linguistic staff and 157 posts for linguistic staff (551-657 in total) were earmarked.

During the derogation period (1995-1999) special competitions reserved for the accession countries were organised.

Current situation

The Commission does not have “25,000” officials. Out of 21.125 Commission officials (including research staff and officials on leave on personal grounds), 630 are Swedish. Staff from Sweden represent 2.9 % of the total number of officials in the Commission and 3.5% of the total A grade staff of the Commission. (As the honourable Member will know, the population of Sweden is 2.36% of the total Union population). This does not objectively represent an unfavourable “imbalance”.

There are 18,343 officials in active employment within the meaning of Article 35a or seconded to the office of a Commissioner (Art 37a) as at 1 January 2003, of whom 514 are Swedish officials.

There were 567 officials on personal leave within the meaning of Art 35c as at 1 January 2003, of whom 68 are Swedish officials.

There were 141 officials on secondment (Art 37) as at 1 January 2003, of whom 5 are Swedish officials.

At senior management level there is 1 Director General (A1 grade) and 6 A2 grade officials of Swedish nationality, one of whom is a Principal Advisor. At middle management level (A3/LA3 grades) there are 20 officials, 5 of whom are Advisors of Swedish nationality. There are 14 other middle managers at A4/LA4 level of Swedish nationality.

The Commission monitors the overall geographical balance continually and the subject is periodically addressed at various levels during bilateral talks between representatives of Member State governments – including Sweden - and the Commission.

Whilst, in compliance with the Staff Regulations, the Commission strives to ensure the maintenance of merit and geographical balance in its staffing, the Institution does not have and would not seek the power to inhibit the freedom of officials to leave the Commission if that is their personal desire. It is also relevant to recognise that, like all of the Institutions, the Commission’s ability to recruit and retain staff from across the Member States depends very largely on the willingness of Member State nationals to seek employment in the Union’s Civil Service and to continue in that employment.

The opinion expressed by the honourable Member "that it is impossible for Swedes to obtain a post in the Commission" is hard to sustain in the light of the statistics given above and in view of the fact that since 2000, more than 20 open competitions in all categories and for a wide variety of profiles have been organised to enable Swedish nationals, as well as nationals from the other Member States, to join the Commission. Furthermore, the validity of the lists of successful candidates established during the last enlargement transition period was extended until 30 June 2002 in order to maximise the opportunity for all qualified candidates to find a post with one of the Institutions.

While recognising the need to develop good water management in Africa and the need for major investment in order to end water wastage through seepage from badly-maintained or neglected reservoirs and catchment systems, what measures does the Commission intend to take to protect the poorest communities in Africa, who will not be able to afford to pay for safe, clean water for their basic needs, and how does the Commission intend to protect communities from water being considered simply a marketable commodity to be sold to the highest bidder?

(EN) The Commission’s Communication on water management in developing countries⁽¹⁾ of 12 March 2002 states that priority should be given to 'ensuring a supply to every human being, especially the poorest and with a clear focus on the needs of women and children, of sufficient drinking water of good quality and adequate sanitation and hygiene, with the general objective of reducing poverty and improving people's health, quality of life and livelihood opportunities'.

It also states that pricing of water services should ensure financial sustainability, and that meeting the basic needs of poor and vulnerable groups requires the design of appropriate tariff structure and collection systems. It favours promoting public private partnerships, ensuring that those partnerships remain equitable, transparent, allow free and reversible choice on water services management, safeguard consumers’ and investors’ interests and maintain high standards of environmental protection.

As to the reform of state-owned enterprises in Africa, for some years developing countries have been under pressure, mainly from the Bretton Woods Institutions, to privatise their enterprises riddled with heavy losses and economic inefficiency. While recognising that public companies in Africa, especially in the water sector, often provide inadequate and low quality service to only a fraction of the urban population, there is a growing awareness that before deciding on a particular solution, such as privatisation, there is a need to objectively examine all the options, in order to select the most appropriate one. The Commission is currently preparing a Communication on this very important subject. Its main message will be the need to keep an open mind on State-owned enterprises reform issues, to put in place adequate regulatory frameworks and to establish monitoring mechanisms to ensure the protection of the public interest.

Just a few days before Greece took over the Council Presidency, most recently on 30 December 2002, large numbers of stray dogs and cats were poisoned in Athens. A similar incident occurred shortly before the start of the last Greek Presidency.

On 30 January 2003 the Greek NGO umbrella organisation CIDAG (Coalition in Defence of Animals in Greece) handed the Greek Embassy in Brussels a petition bearing 47 000 signatures calling for these deplorable events to be investigated and brought to an end as soon as possible.

Will the Commission launch an urgent investigation to find out who is responsible for these criminal acts and, possibly in cooperation with the Greek Council Presidency, work towards an immediate solution to the problem?

(EN) The Commission would refer the honourable Member to its reply to written question E-0177/03 by Mr Papayannakis⁽¹⁾.

The official public information exhibition - called Sparking Reaction and designed by the authoritative British Science Museum - at the Sellafield nuclear waste production and reprocessing site operated by BNFL in West Cumbria on England's north-west coast currently states that the tanks containing the high-level radioactive waste from reprocessing 'represent one of the world's most hazardous concentrations of long-lived radioactive material and are therefore a prime terrorist target. An attack on these tanks similar to the one in New York could have extremely serious consequences for much of the UK and Ireland.'

In the light of this admission that this British military industrial plant might have devastating environmental and health consequences for a neighbouring Member State, namely Ireland, will the Commission send a nuclear safety inspection team to Sellafield, as a matter of urgency, to assess the risk posed by this plant?

(EN) The safety of the high-level waste tanks referred to in the question and - more importantly in the context of a possible terrorist attack - their security, are the responsibility of the operator of the site under the control of the national nuclear regulator.

Within this context, and as regards the specific issue raised, the honourable Member may wish to refer to the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) Team Inspection report⁽¹⁾ of February 2000 on the safety of high level liquid waste (HLLW) storage at Sellafield. In addition, the Office for civil Nuclear Security (under the Department of Trade and Industry) in its 2002 annual report on civil nuclear security includes a section⁽²⁾ on the implications of the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001.

Can the Commission confirm that it is considering a proposal for EU support for a public water supply scheme in Connemara in the west of Ireland and, if so, can it indicate what is the present status of this scheme?

(EN) Support under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for public water supply schemes in the area of Connemara is made available through the Border Midland and Western Regional Operational Programme. The Rural Water Measure in that Programme sets out the broad strategic objectives for implementing the schemes. Decision-making in relation to the selection and approval of projects for funding is decentralised to implementing bodies at local level except where the cost of a project is greater than €50 million. In such cases the project is subject to a cost benefit analysis and the decision on the aid rate is made by the Commission. In the case of public water supply schemes the projects are all small-scale (eligible cost less than €50 million) with decision-making remaining at local level. No application in relation to the specific scheme in Connemara has therefore been submitted to the Commission. The authority responsible for the management of the Border Midland and Western Operation Programme is the Border, Midland and Regional Assembly, Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon (Mr. Gerry Finn – Director – tel. 353 0 90762970).

In its resolution of 19 December 2002 on the sinking of the Prestige and its consequences, the European Parliament called in particular for ‘flags of convenience to be prohibited in EU territorial waters’. What measures will the Commission propose for this EP recommendation to be implemented as quickly as possible?

(FR) The measures proposed by the Commission are explained in detail in the communication on reinforcing maritime safety adopted on 3 December 2002.

With regard to flags of convenience and dangerous vessels in the territorial waters of the Union, the Commission decided to publish a so-called black list. This is a list of all those vessels that would have been banned from European ports if the measures in the Erika I package had been in force at the time. It is hoped the list will serve as a warning to the parties concerned, both ship owners and flag states. They could then take the measures required to remedy the deficiencies recorded prior to the actual entry into force of the new provisions in the directive concerning inspection by the state in which the port is located.

Nonetheless, as requested by Parliament, the Commission believes it is necessary to adopt strict measures on maritime safety at international level regarding the so-called flags of convenience. These measures should include stricter navigation rules and more thorough inspection by the flag states. In this connection, under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) the Commission is cooperating in setting up an audit scheme for the duties incumbent on the flag states.

The Union should take the initiative and call for a review of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This would allow coastal states to protect themselves more effectively against the risks associated with the movement of vessels that represent a danger to the environment and fail to comply with safety regulations. The 200 mile exclusive economic zone would be covered.

Does the Commission regard as adequate a two-line reply to a question from a Member of the European Parliament, where the Commission answer simply replicates the Member’s question (H-0796/02⁽¹⁾)?

This seems to be a form of contempt of Parliament. Will the President please reply concerning this disgraceful behaviour by the Commission?

(EN) In its reply to oral question H-0796/02 by the honourable Member during question time of the December 2002 plenary session of the Parliament, the Commission referred to its decision of 16 October 2002 on the principle of issuing a reasoned opinion.

The Italian reply to the letter of formal notice made it clear that although certain steps had been taken to comply with the judgement of the Court, further clarification and explanation was necessary in order to finalise the drafting process of the reasoned opinion itself. The honourable Member was accordingly informed of this decision.

The reply to question H-0796/02 should also be seen against the background that the Commission had already replied during question time of the May 2002 plenary session of the Parliament, to the honourable Member's previous oral question (H-0302/02) in quite some detail about the steps it was taking, and would take in the future, to ensure compliance by Italy with the judgement of the Court of Justice in case C-212/99.

The reply to question H-0796/02 may have appeared too short, but it was entirely correct factually, and provided the honourable Member with an accurate update of the Commission's actions since the reply to his previous question.

Especially severe ice conditions have prevailed this winter in the Baltic Sea, and in the Gulf of Finland in particular. Pack-ice has put a strain on vessels, which have been moving with extreme difficulty and generally unaided by ice-breakers.

There are also some vessels using the Gulf of Finland which have very inadequate ice protection. There is particular cause for concern about oil tankers from the Russian port of Primorsk (Koivisto), some of which do not have sufficient reinforcement against ice (some, for example, are reinforced only on the bows but not on the sides).

The transport of oil from Primorsk is predicted to double in the next few years. The Russians are also planning two new oil-loading sites at the far end of the Gulf of Finland.

If a disastrous oil spill were to occur in the Gulf of Finland, it would be even harder to remedy – in view of the area’s island geography and the sensitive nature of its environment – than for example in Spain. Moreover the equipment for combating oil spills in many coastal countries is very inadequate. Apart from Finland, the countries bordering the Baltic do not have equipment which could operate in ice conditions.

What does the Commission propose to do to promote the implementation of effective ice-classification requirements for vessels in the whole of the Baltic Sea area, and what can it do to ensure that there is sufficient oil clearing equipment along the Baltic Sea coast which can operate in all conditions? What stage has work on the legislation on this matter reached?

(FR) Within the framework of measures already taken by the Union with a view to preventing oil tanker disasters, namely the Erika II legislative package, the directive on monitoring and control of maritime traffic applies to vessels moving past Community coasts. The directive therefore makes provision for setting up a system of notification which also covers vessels that do not enter Community ports. In addition, the directive empowers the competent authorities to prevent vessels putting to sea in very adverse weather conditions.

When this directive comes into force, Member States will have additional powers to intervene in situations when there is a risk of accidents or pollution.

Further, the directive has put in place procedures for cooperation with a view to improving surveillance of vessels in Union waters. This paves the way for the submission of possible proposals for improvements to maritime traffic in the Baltic. It would be possible to press for their adoption within the International Maritime Organisation.

In addition, within the framework of the agreement between the European Union and Russia, there is provision for contact with the Russian authorities in order to ensure compliance with the measures planned by the Union with a view to ensuring the safe transport of hydrocarbons by sea. A ban on the transport of heavy fuel oils in single-hull tankers is one of the most significant of these measures.

Nonetheless, it should be emphasised that the Union has no legal powers to control the movement of vessels carrying potentially hazardous cargoes in international waters. This is the case even when such movement is close to the coasts of Member States and even if the movement takes place in icy conditions such as those prevailing in the Baltic Sea in winter.

Consequently, the Union should take the initiative and call for a review of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The aim would be to allow coastal states to protect themselves more effectively against the potential dangers represented by the movement of vessels that pose a threat to the environment and fail to comply with safety standards. The 200 mile exclusive economic zone would be included.

Moreover, in case of accidents, Member States and candidate countries can activate the Community Mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in Civil Protection assistance interventions. In this way, any affected Country can have immediate access, through the European response centre, to all specialised equipment available in Europe.

Furthermore, concerning the preparedness and response to marine pollution in the Baltic Sea, the Commission closely follows the works developed within the framework of the Helsinki Convention by the Helsinki Commission (Helcom).

Finally, the Interreg Community Initiative co-finances a transnational cooperation programme among the 11 countries around the Baltic Sea. Activities which can be funded include maritime safety and environmental protection actions. The programme budget is €190 million until the end of 2006.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of patients undergo laser eye surgery in the EU. Although this new technique has been heralded as announcing the end of contact lenses and spectacles, a study released this week by the British Consumers' Association clearly shows that clinics are overlooking the side effects directly linked to the surgery. These complications prove to be dramatic since patients are in most cases totally unaware of the risks they are being exposed to. The study points out the lack of training of the surgeons, who are only given a few days in most cases. Anecdotal evidence even suggests that some people are being given the surgery and are not told that they will still need to wear glasses.

Does the Commission know of any database available which shows precisely how many citizens are undergoing this surgery and what is the rate of success? How can our consumer protection legislation help those who have been affected by shoddy surgery? What action does the Commission propose taking to protect EU citizens?

(EN) The Treaty stipulates that Community action in the field of public health shall respect Member States' responsibilities for the organisation and financing of health services and medical care. It is primarily for Member States to provide protection to patients against medical errors.

The Community's action programme on public health could provide a framework to exchange information between Member States on current practice regarding quality assurance in health services.

In the context of its Consumer Policy Strategy 2002–2006⁽¹⁾ the Commission has highlighted the need to provide consumers with accurate data on safety of services in order to enable them to make informed decisions. However, such data are currently not systematically collected. The Commission is not aware of any database, which shows the number of citizens undergoing laser eye surgery and the rate of success for this type of medical intervention. There is no obligation to report to the Commission accidents and incidents in this area.

The lack of injury data and risk assessment will be discussed more in general in the forthcoming Commission Report on the Safety of Consumer Services in accordance with the request by the Parliament and the Council set out in art 20 of the revised General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC⁽²⁾.

In the absence of Community legislation on liability of service providers, compensation for damage suffered from “shoddy” surgery is covered by Member States’ national liability systems.

How long has the Commission been aware of the report entitled ‘La actualidad del pensiamento de Robert Schuman en el contexto de la Convención sobre el futuro de Europa’, published by Deputy Director-General S. Gómez-Reino at Miami European Union Centre in August 2002?

How does the Commission intend to take Mr Gómez-Reino to task for giving the impression that ‘wholly unfair, disproportionate and to a large extent simply groundless accusations of fraud and corruption’ (p. 14 of the report) were made in the case of the Santer Commission in March 1999?

What action will the Commission take to correct the view given to the reading public by the published opinion of this person – who is regarded as an authority and who is discrediting the European Parliament with several of his statements – so that a more accurate picture of the European Union can be created in the USA?

(EN) As the honourable Member knows, the report entitled ‘La actualidad del pensiamento de Robert Schuman en el contexto de la Convención sobre el futuro de Europa’ was published in August 2002.

The completion of a fellowship as a Jean Monnet Chair research scholar necessarily involves publishing papers. The acceptance of the fellowship implies the production and publication of the results of work related to that fellowship.

The Commission holds the view that there is very little risk that the author’s statement referred to by the honourable Member could be considered to be a matter that deals with the actual work of the Commission, since the article in the academic journal was produced by an official who has no current management responsibilities and it is addressed to the specialists who read the University of Miami Jean Monnet/ Robert Schuman Paper Series.

Under these circumstances, it would not appear to be reasonable to think that authorisation under Article 17 had to be provided.

A respected Greek newspaper has published a graph showing how a virtual monopoly has been created in the public works sector as the result of the application of a mathematical formula in selecting contractors. Given that the European Union's authorities agreed in 1996 with the idea of the then Minister for the Environment, Planning and Public Works of applying this formula, which is used only in Greece, will the Commission reconsider its use and say what measures it will take in response to complaints concerning its abuse?

(FR) The Commission would like to inform the honourable Member that it has indeed written to the Greek authorities on a number of occasions between 1994 and 1996. It urged the latter to implement measures aimed at resolving what was then a serious problem. This involved a high number of artificially low tenders in the context of the award of public contracts, with the ensuing unrealistic contracts. Greece adopted the mathematical formula currently in use in order to remedy the situation, which was causing difficulties for Community financing of projects. At the time, the Greek authorities informed the Commission of their intention to carry out legislative reform and introduce the use of a mathematical formula in order to identify artificially low tenders for the award of public contracts. Nonetheless, the Commission was not formally consulted on the content of the relevant legislative texts.

Currently, Greece is not the only Member State using a mathematical formula to identify artificially low tenders for the award of public contracts. Italy and Spain are but two of the States also using a formula of this kind. For its part, the Court of Justice has ruled on the subject in the context of two cases brought before it⁽¹⁾. It follows from the Court’s ruling that the use of a mathematical formula to identify artificially low tenders does not in itself constitute a violation of Community law. Certain details of the Greek system could, however, present problems of compliance with Community legislation and the jurisprudence of the Court.

The Commission wrote to the Greek authorities in order to clarify the situation and follow up related complaints. The Greek authorities were requested to elaborate on how they applied the mathematical formula to identify artificially low tenders. They have recently replied to the Commission’s letter. The Commission is now considering their reply prior to deciding on a course of action for the future.

As a result of UK state aid of some SEK 200 million (over 20 million euro), Ford has chosen to locate its production of a new six-cylinder engine in Wales instead of at the engine plant at Skövde in Sweden, despite the fact that the new engine was developed in Skövde itself, which lies in the motor industry belt in Västra Götaland.

Other state aid of some SEK 100 million (over 10 million euro) has been paid to an engine manufacturer in Valencia, Spain. That aid has also resulted in jobs being moved from Skövde.

The Swedish public and the workers affected at the engine plant in Skövde are extremely angry that jobs are being relocated within the EU because of state aid in other Member States.

Does the Commission consider that state aid in general, and in these two cases in particular, distorts competition and that there is therefore a manifest need to tighten up the rules as soon as possible? What is the Commission doing to prevent state aid within the EU resulting in jobs moving from one Member State to another and what measures does the Commission intend to take in these specific cases?

According to newspaper reports in Sweden, the EU's contribution of some SEK 200 million to Ford's investment in an engine factory in Wales now means that the six-cylinder engine developed by Volvo will not be built in Skövde, Sweden, but in Wales. Had Ford invested in the Skövde factory instead, where wage costs are ten percent lower than in Wales, the company would not have received any structural aid from the EU.

EU taxpayers, including Swedish taxpayers, are therefore to help pay for jobs and production to move between countries to the benefit of big companies. With the enlargement of the Union, there is a greater risk that big companies will relocate production in Member States where the level of training is fairly high but wage costs are only a sixth of those in Sweden, for example.

Is the Commission aware of this danger and how does it intend to offset the consequences?

(EN) The Commission is regularly questioned about the consistency of competition policy when there are relocations of production facilities within the Union. The Commission would like first of all to underline that relocations are first and foremost the result of choices made by the enterprise in order to improve its competitiveness, either by reducing its overheads (wage costs, transport, raw materials, tax), or by rationalising its production tools. Decisions concerning the location of a new investment may thus be influenced by a number of factors, not only or principally the possibility of obtaining financial support from the public purse in order to make new investments. In any event, any public support of this kind, whether of national or Community origin must respect the Community rules on State aid.

The basic principle underlying the rules on State aid is that it is incompatible with the common market. However, exceptions may be made provided that the impact on trade and the distortion of competition which result from the granting of State aid are offset by an adequate contribution to the development of a disadvantaged region.

This is why one of the objectives of the cohesion policy, and the main aim of regional aid, is to provide an appropriate level of incentive necessary for the development of the assisted region. As far as the control of State aid is concerned, this policy is translated into practice by a system of ceilings on the level of aid depending on the degree and the urgency of the various regional problems.

The Commission takes account of potential relocation problems in the application of the Community rules on State aid so as to ensure that the harmful effects of aid on competition are offset by beneficial effects, notably in terms of cohesion. Thus, when it adopted the guidelines on national regional aid, the Commission reduced the level of aid authorised across the board in order to reduce the risks of regions attempting to outbid one another and to limit aid to what is strictly necessary. At the same time, the granting of regional aid was tied more strictly to conditions of duration in terms of the continuation of investment and jobs creation in the region concerned. Finally, large investment projects are subject to an even stricter discipline in the light of the provisions drawn up in the recent Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects⁽¹⁾.

According to these rules, the maximum aid intensity for regional investment aid in the motor vehicle sector, granted under an approved scheme in favour of projects that involve either eligible expenditure above € 50 million or an aid amount above € 5 million expressed in gross grant equivalent, will be equal to 30% of the corresponding regional aid ceiling.

Consequently, aid granted to an engine manufacturer in Wales after 1 January 2003 could only reach a maximum intensity of 10.5% of the investment costs, against an aid intensity of 35% until December 2002. In any event, the Commission will contact the United Kingdom authorities in order to confirm that any aid granted to engine manufacturers conforms to the Community rules applicable.

Regarding the aid granted to a motor vehicle manufacturer in Valencia, Spain, in May 2002 the Commission approved, after an in-depth investigation € 11.11 million in investment aid to Ford España for its Almusafes (Valencia) plant, with a reduction of 30% of the amount initially planned by the Spanish authorities. The Commission’s investigation lead to the conclusion that the approved aid was necessary to compensate for the regional disadvantages of the Valencia region, and was therefore compatible with the common market.

As regards the potential relocation of production to the Candidate Countries as a consequence of state aid, the Commission has consistently taken the view that the Candidate Countries can be regarded to be ready for accession only if their companies and public authorities have become accustomed to a competition and state aid discipline similar to that of the Community well before the date of accession. Candidate Countries are required to comply with the criteria of the Community state aid acquis already during the pre-accession period.

The Commission has advocated this strict approach not only to preserve the internal market discipline after enlargement, but also to keep a level playing field between future and existing Member States in the enlarged internal market. This strict approach applies in particular to such a sensitive issue as aid to the motor vehicle industry. Therefore, the guiding principle remains that lower aid intensities have to be maintained in this sector, regardless of whether the beneficiary is investing in the current or future Member States.

The 'Priorities of the Greek Presidency for 2003' state that 'the effectiveness of existing international treaties on the control of narcotics production and trafficking, should be reviewed'.

As the first opportunity to review the effectiveness of the conventions will be the meeting of the UN Narcotics Commission in Vienna from 8 to 17 April 2003, how does the Commission intend to contribute to the Council's objective of reviewing the effectiveness of the conventions?

Will the Commission propose to the Member States and the Council a future review of the relevant international conventions, or does already intend to table proposals for changes in April? What stage has been reached by the Commission in its work on this issue?

(FR) The Commission has taken note of the document entitled ‘Priorities of the Greek Presidency for 2003’. The document suggests that a review of international treaties on drugs currently in force is called for. The Greek Presidency has not yet put forward any initiatives to this effect.

The UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs is due to meet in its ministerial configuration in Vienna from 16 to 17 April 2003. The purpose of the meeting is to assess progress in implementing the objectives and actions agreed at the 1998 General Assembly and the difficulties encountered. So far as the Commission is aware, a review of international conventions is not on the agenda for the April 2003 meeting.

The 1961 UN Convention on Drugs classifies cannabis in Schedule I along with the most dangerous drugs such as heroin, and in Schedule IV includes Schedule I drugs that are considered to have limited therapeutic value and extremely dangerous properties. The 1988 UN Convention considers the principal element of cannabis, THC, only as a psychotropic substance. The logicality of these classifications consequently raises serious doubts: in fact a plant containing 3% of a principal element is dealt with more severely than the pure substance at 100%.

Does the Commission think that: cannabis classification in Schedule I along with heroin is appropriate? cannabis is as dangerous as heroin? cannabis classification in Schedule IV is appropriate? cannabis has no medical value? cannabis should be treated more severely than its principal element? the Commission should propose amendments to the Council and to Member States for reclassification of cannabis under the UN Conventions?

(FR) The issue of the consistency of the classification of drugs dates back to the adoption of the first UN Convention on Drugs in 1961, known as the Single Convention. Cannabis is indeed classified together with heroin. The difficulties arose because there is no clear definition of the concept of a narcotic in the texts. Classification is therefore based mainly on the medicinal properties of the substances in question.

The debate surrounding possible reclassification of cannabis is certainly complex. It is for the parties to the Convention to rule on the issue. The Commission is not in a position to become involved, as it only has observer status on the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The Commission cannot therefore table amendments on the subject. Regarding a possible Council initiative for the reclassification of cannabis, the Commission currently has no plans to propose such an initiative.

The 1961, 1971 and 1988 UN conventions on drugs prohibit and criminalise a whole series of drug-related activities (cultivation, production, export and import, consumption, sale, etc). Many states imposed the death penalty for these offences when they transposed the conventions into their national law. Those states include China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Kuwait, Iran, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia.

Does the Commission not consider that it is necessary, and consistent with the European Union's international position on the death penalty, to review such international conventions as a matter of urgency in order to prohibit the death penalty for drug-related offences? If so, will the Commission raise this issue and table a proposal for an amendment by the EU Member States - all of which are signatories to the conventions - at the forthcoming UN meeting on drugs to be held in Vienna in April 2003?

(EN) The Union policy for the abolition of the death penalty is pursued actively by the Commission, together with Member States, in relations with third countries that maintain this punishment. The Union has specific guidelines for this action.

The Commission also pursues this policy through programmes with in particular non-governmental organisations (NGOs) under the European Initiative for Human Rights and Democracy. The Commission has recently decided to allocate approximately € 4,9 million to different projects in support of abolition of the death penalty.

The issue of amending the United Nations conventions on drugs of 1961, 1971 or 1988 does not appear on the agenda of the meeting of the committee on drugs to be held in Vienna between 8 and 17 April 2003. The Commission is not in a good position to exert an influence in this area, since it only has observer status in that United Nations committee.

How far does the Commission feel the single market currently extends to betting and gaming? What plans does it have for developments in this area?

(EN) The activities related to betting and gaming contain issues related to the free movement of goods and the free movement of services. Games, gambling machines and other similar goods are products to which Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty apply. Furthermore, betting and gaming can be considered as services if they are provided for remuneration. When the services in question are cross-border services, e.g. when they are offered in a Member State other than that in which the operator is established, they fall within the ambit of Article 49 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission would like to underline that Member States may impose some restrictions on the cross-border provision of services and on the free movement of gambling machines within the Community to protect general interest objectives such as the protection of consumers or the maintenance of public order in society. In line with the European Court of Justice’s jurisprudence such restrictions are compatible with the EC Treaty if they are non-discriminatory and proportionate to these objectives.

As regards new national laws seeking to regulate information society services that take the form of betting or gaming services or seeking to regulate gaming and gambling machines, these must be notified to the Commission and to Member States under Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998⁽¹⁾ as modified by Directive 98/48/EC of 20 July 1998⁽²⁾. Commission and Member States can then react if the draft national regulation contains internal market problems.

Political, economic and social developments in the Balkan countries over the last few years have opened up new prospects both for the EU and for these countries themselves, in particular the prospect of the future accession of some of them to the family of EU Member States. Northern Greece is particularly important, given the EU's prominent role in the Balkans.

One means of achieving this objective would be to set up a regional representation of the Commission in Thessaloniki. Such representations exist in other cities of the Member States, apart from the capitals.

Is there any prospect of setting up a regional representation of the Commission in Thessaloniki? If so, what procedure would Greece or the Commission have to adopt?

(FR) It is for the Commission alone to decide on opening regional representations. This can only be justified if the citizens of a particular region have a significant and clearly identified need for information on European issues. There must be no other way of meeting this need. Decentralisation of information then allows the need to be met effectively, by providing first-hand information appropriate to local conditions. Account is also taken of the specific geographical situation and of the considerable powers devolved to some regional administrations.

There are administrative and budgetary constraints on the policy of opening regional representations in Member States. In the context of administrative preparations for enlargement in 2004, new representations in each of the future Member States have priority. The demands on administrative capacity and financial resources are such that it is not currently possible to contemplate opening a regional representation in Thessalonica.

Concerning this last point in particular, information centres constitute an alternative to regional representations. This has been the case in Thessalonica. In 1999 a European centre for communication, information and culture was established. It was the subject of a subsequent agreement between the Commission and the regional authorities, signed in 2002 and valid for three years.

The Spanish Ministry of the Environment has carried out works that were 65% ERDF-funded to channel and divert water from the Riaño reservoir. The Spanish administration has demanded that the Carrión irrigator community, which is the beneficiary of the canalisation work, pay a fee that will take the form of a repayment and cover 100% of the cost of the works, when the Spanish State only bore 25% of the expenses.

Since this is also an Objective 1 area, could the Commission indicate whether a Member State can, by way of operating charges like the one in question, recoup the cost of an investment that was financed to a large extent by the ERDF?

Do EU regulations permit Member States to charge citizens of Objective 1 areas, thus obliging them to meet the cost of ERDF investment in such areas?

(EN) The Commission is informed that the Spanish authorities apply taxes and levies to water infrastructures in order to support the operating maintenance costs and capital depreciation.

Council Regulation 1260/1999⁽¹⁾ laying down the general provisions for the Structural Funds does not include any provision or restriction regarding the measures that Member States may adopt regarding the financing of operating maintenance and depreciation costs for projects for which the initial investment was supported by the Funds.

General Logistics Systems (GLS) is a subsidiary of the Royal Mail Group plc, which distributes parcels from non-EU countries throughout Europe.

In Germany, GLS is required to pay duty on the value of parcels before they can be forwarded to the various European destinations. This duty is not apparently imposed on equivalent parcels distributed by publicly owned postal services.

Is such discrimination between two suppliers (the national, publicly owned and the private) consistent with current EU law and, if not, what does the Commission intend to do to remedy this situation?

(EN) In accordance with the provisions of the Community Customs Code and the Common Customs Tariff, import duties are charged on the customs value of imported goods. With the exception of a minor rule⁽¹⁾ which deals only with the inclusion of certain postal charges in the customs value, there are no particular customs valuation rules which apply specifically to the import of goods in parcels.

Import duties are chargeable at the time the goods are released for free circulation. In the case of the consignments sent by one private individual to another, they can benefit from duty relief for an amount up to € 45 ⁽²⁾ or from a flat import duty rate of 3.5% for an amount up to € 350 if certain conditions are fulfilled ⁽³⁾. Therefore, there is no discrimination with regard to the amount of duty to be paid.

Under Community Customs law, a Member State's Post can be considered as the declarant, and where applicable, as the debtor⁽⁴⁾. Furthermore, goods brought into the Community need not be conveyed to the import customs office on condition that customs supervision and customs control possibilities are not jeopardised⁽⁵⁾, and can move within the Community and be declared for release for free circulation under a CN22 or CN23 document as established by the Universal Postal Union⁽⁶⁾. The Commission is currently examining whether - and how - these procedural rules should be amended in order to provide a level playing field for all operators who import parcels.

Palestinians studying in the Member States of the EU are facing particularly severe problems in surviving as their grants dwindle, making their already difficult situation even worse, at the same time as they are unable to return to Palestine because of the situation in the Middle East and the constant attacks on Palestinian territory by the persecutive Israeli authorities.

Will the Commission take the necessary steps to enable these students to complete their studies by providing them directly with financial assistance and giving them the opportunity to work in the countries in which they are resident?

(FR) Issues relating to student grants fall within the competence of Member States, not that of the Community. The reduction in the value of the grants referred to by the honourable Member therefore also falls within the competence of the Member States. The Commission cannot become involved in this matter.

The Directorate-General for Research is actively involved in preparing the study concerning the consequences of the new Basle II regulations which is based on a decision by the Barcelona European Council, and in respect of which the Directorate-General for the Internal Market, as the unit responsible, issued an invitation to tender. Accordingly, and particularly in view of the extremely important consequences of Basle II for the research and development activities of small and medium-sized European firms, I should like to ask the Commission when the results of this study can be expected to be available. The planned publication of the Basle II impact study for the European Council in late autumn 2003 seems too late, in any event. It is very important that the results of the study should be available during Basle II's third consultation period, which runs from May to August 2003. Will the Commission be able to make at least provisional results from the Basle II impact study available during the third consultation period?

(EN) The European Council at its Meeting in Barcelona in 2002 requested the Commission ‘to present a report on the consequences of the Basel deliberations for all sectors of the European economy with particular attention to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

The Commission has warmly welcomed the opportunity presented by this request. It considers it highly desirable and important to assess the likely consequences of the new capital requirements framework – which are of significant importance and potential benefit to the Union economy.

The issues concerned in such a report are of course very complex. The Commission developed a detailed and considered call for tenders which it launched in July 2002. The call evoked considerable interest.

The intention of the Commission has been consistently that the Consequences Report should be finalised and made available before the adoption of a Directive proposal by the Commission. This is necessary and desirable in order that it may inform the finalisation of the proposal and the subsequent legislative procedures. This should contribute significantly to the democratic process.

At an advanced stage in the tendering procedure, a formal irregularity was detected and as a consequence it was decided to close the call and launch a new tender. This is going ahead imminently and will take place using an accelerated tendering procedure.

It is the Commission’s intention that the report should be finalised by the end of 2003. This will be only a short period behind the originally scheduled finalisation date of September 2003 and means that the report will, as planned, be available in advance of the adoption of a Directive proposal in the first part of 2004.

In all of this, it must be remembered that it is of great importance – as the Parliament itself has stated – that the new framework should be implemented in Member States in line with the Basel deadline of end-of-year 2006. This is necessary to ensure that the European financial services industry is not to be disadvantaged as compared with its global competitors.

It should also be mentioned that the Commission has just concluded a very successful ‘Structured Dialogue’ exercise with industry – including with SMEs. It is intended to make comments received during this exercise publicly available on the Commission’s website in the near future.

The reduction in interest rates on deposits has particularly adverse effects for small savers, especially in countries, such as Greece, where inflation remains high, resulting quite simply in a loss of resources. At the same time, the banks, whose earnings from the stock market are currently declining, are once again hitting ordinary people and, in an attempt to increase their profits, are 'widening the gap', maintaining high rates of interest on loans, particularly mortgages and consumer borrowing.

Will the Commission take the necessary measures within its competence to protect small depositors and small borrowers from the arbitrary actions of the banks, which exploit them by means of an oligopolist and dominant position in order to boost profits, using fluctuating interest rates to shift all the burdens brought about by the crisis on to them?

(EN) The Commission thanks the honourable Member for its question concerning the reduction in interest rates on deposits, particularly in Greece, and the adverse effect that this may have on small depositors.

The liberalisation of financial markets in the Community is largely achieved. The successful introduction of the euro has been a catalyst in this.

Within this context, financial markets are highly competitive ones and individual institutions, whilst being influenced by common factors such as a change in the market borrowing/lending rate, arrange the conditions applied to their customers according to their own individual strategy, balance sheet and other considerations.

Although there have from time to time been ad-hoc investigations into alleged collusion or coordination between institutions concerning conditions applied to customers, no evidence has so far been found of collusion or of an abuse of a collectively dominant position in Greece.

Therefore, at this stage there are no concrete indications for an infringement of Articles 81 or 82 of the Treaty. However, the Commission has brought this matter to the attention of the Greek competition authority which is best placed to monitor the retail banking market in Greece.

Within the last 25 months, the National Emergency Aid Centre (EKAB) in Greece has had three air crashes claiming 14 lives, which has provoked a sense of indignation in the country. Numerous questions remain unanswered as to the causes of the accidents and the responsibility of government departments together with DRF and its subsidiary Helitalia, which were in charge of the operation of the rescue helicopters.

How much from Community resources has been spent on EKAB equipment, operations and personnel training? Following these tragic events, has the Commission asked to investigate whether EKAB complied with European flight safety rules? Does the Commission intend to finance the imminent purchase of EKAB's new helicopters and aircraft and what measures will it take (recommendations, inspections, etc.) to ensure that management and safety standards within EKAB are satisfactory?

(EN) According to the information received from the Greek authorities, two of the three helicopters that have crashed over the last months had been co-financed by the Community through the Community Support Framework 1994-1999 for Greece, in particular under the Operational Programme "Health and welfare". More precisely, the programme mentioned financed the procurement of five helicopters with a total cost of € 17.8 million, of which € 13.3 million were contributed by the Community. The delivery of helicopters began on 24 December 1999 (first helicopter) and was completed on 29 March 2000 (fifth helicopter).

According to Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents⁽¹⁾, every accident has to be investigated by an independent body established in each Member State with the sole objective of preventing future accident. A report containing, where appropriate, safety recommendations has to be published, if possible within one year of the accident, and a copy has to be sent to the Commission. It will be the exclusive responsibility of the Member State to enforce the possible safety recommendation to prevent re-occurrence of these accidents.

Moreover, in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field⁽²⁾, if in the light of the circumstances of these accidents the Greek authorities conclude that the expenditure on helicopters constitutes an irregularity because of deficiencies in the tendering or contracting process (as distinct from operational issues), it is the Member State's responsibility to communicate to the Commission this irregularity, and this before the submission of the final payment claim for the related programme ("Health and welfare").