President. – The next item is Question Time (B5-0216/2000). We will examine questions to the Commission.

At the request of the Commission, we will begin with the third question so that Mr Patten can answer it.

First part

  President. –

Question No 34 by Richard Graham Corbett (H-0306/00):

Subject: Commission participation in the Council's military committee

Does the Commission agree that its participation in meetings of the Council and all its bodies is an established part of the acquis communautaire and an essential element of the institutional equilibrium of the European Union?

Can the Commission comment on rumours to the effect that it is not participating in the work of the new military committee? Can the Commission explain the reasons for this non-participation? Will the Commission insist on its right to participate?

  Patten, Commission. – The Commission shares the view that its participation in meetings of the Council and all its bodies is part of the EU acquis and an essential element of the European Union institutional framework. Commission participation is expressly provided for in the Council's Rules of Procedure, which state that the Commission takes part in all Council meetings, and in meetings of all its preparatory bodies. Only in exceptional circumstances and on a case-by-case basis can the Commission be excluded from these meetings.

In Helsinki, it was confirmed that the development of ESDP should take place within the existing institutional framework. This reflects the Commission's full association with the common, foreign and security policy and its shared responsibility with the Council for ensuring consistency in the Union's external relations. Excluding the Commission from work in this area would be tantamount to accepting the emergence of a fourth pillar in the Treaty, contrary to the Helsinki conclusions. But although the Commission has a right to attend all working structures in the Council, it does not have an obligation to do so. There are instances where the Commission decides not to participate in a particular meeting, usually because it considers that the items to be dealt with are not of direct concern to it or to Community affairs.

We have agreed arrangements without difficulty to take part in all the post-Helsinki structures, such as the interim Political and Security Committee, with one exception. We are still discussing arrangements for the interim military body. We would plainly have nothing to contribute to the interim military body when it deals with purely military business but there will equally be occasions from time to time when it discusses issues which straddle civil and military cooperation. In cases like these, I think that it is not only natural but in everyone's interests that the Commission should participate in the meeting in order to contribute to the overall coherence and effectiveness of European Union policies and actions.

  Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, may I thank the Commissioner for that excellent and comprehensive answer, which goes a long way to reassuring me. May I ask him to confirm that the Commission's choice not to participate in certain meetings will be taken, as he put it, on a 'meeting by meeting' basis, not a structure by structure basis, depending on what is being discussed. To take a decision structure by structure would indeed create an unfortunate precedent, undermining the acquis communautaire, which is that the Commission takes part in all Council meetings and preparatory meetings. Indeed it would be counter to the Treaty, which states that the Commission is "fully associated", not partially associated, with the CFSP and that it will remain the Commission's choice whether to participate or not.

  Patten, Commission. – I realise that the honourable Member is a greater expert on these institutional issues than I am. It is not therefore surprising that he is holed in one. The question is whether the choice is meeting by meeting or structure by structure and we have made it gently and courteously but firmly clear what our view is of the matter. I very much hope that it can be resolved satisfactorily over the coming weeks.

  Titley (PSE). – Mr President, if the Council does not agree with the Commission, does that mean the Commission will have to take the Council to the European Court in order to participate in the military committee? Secondly, has the Commission drawn any conclusions as to the security implications of its participation in the military committee?

  Patten, Commission. – On the second point, if I may be slightly irrelevant, the history of the last fifty years does not suggest that it is bodies like the Commission which usually are a problem in that regard. I certainly do not think that is an issue. There is a general issue about security, which I know the High Representative is addressing and rightly so.

As for the first point, I very much hope that we can resolve these things amicably, and I am sure that if both honourable gentlemen put the case that they have put to me with equal force to their first cousins in the United Kingdom Government, that will very much help to resolve these issues without it taking too long. I hope that we do not have to resort to the sort of measures suggested by the honourable gentleman. I hope that we can solve this in a civilised and sensible way.

I repeat, we do not have – to borrow a phrase – "ideas above our station". We are trying to follow the terms of the Treaty and to do so only when it is helpful to the overall implementation of a common foreign and security policy.

  President. – Thank you very much, Mr Patten. I believe we have asked you all the questions we were going to ask you today. We therefore wish you a good afternoon.

  President. –

Question No 32 by Per-Arne Arvidsson (H-0293/00):

Subject: Ability of dialysis-dependent people to travel in the EU

The free movement of Member States' citizens in the EU is a fundamental right. One group of people that cannot make use of that right are those who require regular haemodialysis because of malfunctioning kidneys. When travelling, they rely on being able to obtain treatment at dialysis units other than those they normally use. This poses a major problem especially during the European holiday period, when virtually all dialysis units scale down their activities and frequently turn away 'guests' who are passing through or visiting their area. This severely restricts the ability of families with dialysis-dependent members to travel.

Does the Commission intend to take any steps before the next summer holiday period begins to make it easier for dialysis-dependent people to travel within the EU, without having to forego the treatment they need?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to refer Mr Arvidsson to Community legislation on the coordination of individual national social security systems. According to this legislation, persons temporarily resident in a Member State other than that in which they are insured are entitled to health care services if their condition is such that they require emergency treatment. The persons in question need to obtain an E111 form from their insurance agency and submit it to the institution in the Member States in which they are temporarily resident as proof of insurance.

In order to ease the situation of temporarily resident dialysis patients and rectify the possible lack of clarity in the definition of emergency treatment, the Member States have agreed on special rules which are laid down in Decision No 163 of the Administrative Commission of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers of 31 May 1996. According to these rules, dialysis qualifies as emergency treatment, provided that the purpose of the visit is non-medical. However, as the availability of dialysis treatment may differ from one Member State to another, the patients in question are of course invited to make the necessary arrangements in advance with the hospital which is to supply the service in order to ensure that they can receive dialysis treatment while temporarily resident in the Member State in question.

As to the question of whether the Commission will take any initiatives in order to increase the availability of dialysis during the holiday period, I should like to say that there is no standardised social security system in the Community and that it is up to each individual Member State to configure its own social security system and to decide what services will be supplied, who is entitled to them and to what extent they are to be provided. It is not therefore up to the Commission to intervene here and to influence national rules on the modus operandi of hospitals and clinics in the Member States.

  Arvidsson (PPE-DE). – (SV) Many hospitals do not regard chronic dialysis treatment as an emergency form of treatment and may therefore deny dialysis-dependent travellers the opportunity to undergo such treatment at their dialysis units.

Children, parents or young people in families where someone is dialysis-dependent are often very keen to travel. They work and are given holiday-time, but they are unable to go on ordinary tours. For such people, going abroad is an international issue and, if the national authorities do not do anything to help, their hopes lie with the EU as an organisation. Even if it is not possible to intervene on a purely legal level, there may be other options for calling attention to the need to increase the provision of dialysis facilities during holiday periods in the Member States. For example, more prominence could be given to hospitals which make efforts to provide such facilities, or attractive European prizes could perhaps be announced for those which take the relevant measures.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Perhaps my first explanation struck you as overly legal, Mr Arvidsson, and I should perhaps repeat myself in simpler terms: as far as Community law is concerned, the relevant committee has clarified that dialysis during temporary residence qualifies as emergency treatment. It has nothing to do with whether someone is chronically ill or an acute case. The decisive question is whether or not this is emergency treatment and the answer to this question is yes.

On the other hand, the Commission, as I have explained, can only propose or make certain information available here. The Commission departments have made such information available. But in individual cases and in relation to a specific holiday resort – and you will probably agree with me here – it would be advisable in that case to check in advance if the hospital or institution in question has dialysis facilities.

  President. –

Question No 33 by Pasqualina Napoletano (H-0298/00):

Subject: Measures to protect chocolate

As part of its policy to ensure the quality of agricultural products and foodstuffs, the Union has set up a system to protect traditional products of specific character, under which chocolate is eligible for recognition. Council Regulation No 2088/92⁽¹⁾ provides for the Commission to set up and administer a register of certificates of specific character. Under this regulation, producers of chocolate without the addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter can apply for a certificate of specific character (guaranteed traditional speciality) so that it can be recognised as a food product made from traditional raw materials.

Has the Commission already received from the Member States applications by producers for chocolate of this kind to be included in the register of certificates of specific character? Will the Commission take all necessary steps to give effect to the provisions laid down in the regulation and include chocolate without the addition of vegetable fats among the foodstuffs recognised as guaranteed traditional specialities?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The Commission has received no applications from producers for a so-called certificate of special character for chocolate without the addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter. However, if such an application is submitted, it will be examined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Regulation No 2082/92 on certificates of special character for agricultural products and foodstuffs. The name of the special character registered on the certificate allows the words – and I quote – ‘guaranteed traditional speciality’, ‘gts’ for short, to be added, together with a Community symbol reserved for them.

  Napoletano (PSE). – (IT) If I am not mistaken, the Commission is not considering this option. I would like to insist on this point because I feel that there is concern among consumers that the creation of the single market is resulting in less importance being attached to product quality. We must endeavour to allay this concern, and I therefore feel, should the manufacturers of a Member State so request, of course, that within the White Paper on food safety and in other ways, the Commission should consider protecting chocolate which is produced according to traditional methods without additional vegetable oil as a high quality European product, and refuse to set the lowest level as the standard, for this may be permitted by the market, but it is not acceptable in terms of the quality of the produce and the lives of our consumers.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Napoletano, as I said, no chocolate producer has yet demonstrated any interest in this form of protection. No applications have been filed. However, in order to clarify matters somewhat as you have requested, I should point out to you that the Regulation which I quoted makes provision for two possible forms of legal protection for names.

One possibility is that a name can only be protected if it is connected with the Community name ‘gts’ and the corresponding Community symbol, in which case it is possible to find other products on the market which have the same name as the registered product, but which are manufactured using a different process and consequently are not entitled to use the Community name and the Community symbol. That is the drawback with this variation.

The second possibility is to protect the name per se if it corresponds to a single type of manufacture, namely the type registered, in which case there will be no products with the same name which are manufactured under different conditions on the market.

It would only be possible to register the name “chocolate” and issue a certificate of special character under the first procedure referred to. Registration using the second procedure would run counter to the future chocolate directive, because chocolate is redefined and may contain a certain proportion of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter.

  Banotti (PPE-DE). – The Commissioner actually answered my question in the second part of his answer. As a long-time passionate lover of chocolate for more years than I care to remember, I am sure the Commissioner will agree that, if for sixty years people have been eating a product called "chocolate", they are entitled to continue to eat the product called "chocolate". I am very glad that we finally put this directive to bed in the last session.

  President. – We take note of your statement in favour of good chocolate, Mrs Banotti.

  President. –

Question No 35 by Mary Elizabeth Banotti (H-0307/00):

Subject: Children's rights

Given the reports of sexual abuse, of child prostitution and the high number of young children living on the streets of the candidate countries from Eastern Europe, what measures are being taken by the Commission to ensure within the framework of the present accession negotiations, that children's rights and child protection are a priority and that the welfare of children is taken into account when preparing these countries for future membership of the European Union?

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, I should like to start by saying that I share the concern behind the honourable Member’s question. It is particularly depressing to see that, in a number of Central and Eastern European countries, children are suffering from the consequences or, to be more precise, the uncontrolled consequences of social change.

However, before answering your question with the standard legal arguments, I should like to get a political point out of the way first. This is not a problem specific to the candidate countries of the European Union. Unfortunately, as you well know, I am sure, the problem encompasses many, perhaps even the majority of countries in the world. It is quite clearly a development problem, a problem which stems from poverty, a problem which stems from social neglect and, I believe, a problem which stems from the indifference or lack of decisiveness in our societies to really do something to fight this terrible manifestation of child abuse.

Allow me to tell you what we can do within the framework of accession negotiations. To get straight to the point, it is not much, but the fact remains that countries wishing to join the European Union have of course undertaken to adopt the Community acquis. That includes the legally binding regulations for the protection of children.

The most important of these is the joint action to fight the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children, on which a decision was reached on 24 February 1997. The Commission also intends to submit a proposal to the Council in the year 2000, i.e. this year, whereby the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children, taking special account of child pornography on the Internet, will be declared to be punishable offences. If this proposal is accepted, it will become part of the Community acquis which applies in candidate countries.

The Member States and countries seeking to join the European Union are working together comprehensively in the fight against all forms of organised and other serious crime within the framework of the pre-accession agreements on the fight against organised crime concluded by the Member States of the European Union, the Central and Eastern European countries wishing to join the Union and Cyprus on 28 May 1998. Programmes such as PHARE and MEDA and the relevant specific programmes relating to justice and internal affairs such as GROTIUS, STOP, ODYSSEUS and FALCONE also offer the opportunity to support countries seeking to join the Union in this respect and support is indeed given.

The following programmes are relevant to child protection: first the DAPHNE programme approved on 24 January 2000. This relates to the period from 2000 to 2003 and includes preventive measures to fight violence against children, young people and women and allows funds to be provided to governmental and non-governmental organisations active in this area. The countries seeking to join the Union can also join this programme.

Then there is the STOP programme for the period from 1996 to 2000. This is a promotion and exchange programme for people responsible for measures to fight the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. This programme helps to develop coordinated initiatives to fight the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. The Commission will draft a proposal for a new edition of the STOP programme during the course of this year, which will then also be open to countries seeking to join the Union.

  Banotti (PPE-DE). – The Commissioner showed us where his heart was in the opening remarks. I should like to ask him if he is aware that, notwithstanding the implementation of many of the Community programmes, in a recent BBC television programme Newsnight there was clear evidence that there is a systematic breeding programme in Romania in particular, where children are being bred for export and sale. It was a totally horrendous programme, although I agree social exclusion is a major factor in these dreadful occurrences. There were children who were being bred specifically to be put into an institution from which they were subsequently sold to people coming into that country to buy babies.

There is also the question of Internet pornography. Poland is one of the significant countries from which much of this is being broadcast. It is not enough that we have these small, under-funded programmes. What are we actually doing in terms of the accession discussions with these countries to make our opinion abundantly clear that this is unacceptable?

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) I should like to explain to the honourable Member what my feelings are in this matter, not just the legal aspects. The whole problem could not have arisen and would not exist were there no demand for this horrendous supply in our rich societies, including in the Member States of the European Union. The entire problem has only arisen because there are people in our societies who will pay money for it. In Romania there are no people paying for it. These people are in this country, the country in which we live, in all the neighbouring countries, in all the countries of the European Union.

I would be most grateful to the honourable Member if, before representing one of the poorest countries of Europe in her question here, she were also to point out that the real responsibility for this terrible crime lies with those who pay for and demand it.

Now let me come to Romania. The subject of children in Romania is, as you know, one of the subjects on which the Commission is most intensively employed, including me personally. There is no single topic in the context of accession negotiations, apart perhaps from the safety of nuclear power stations, to which I personally have addressed myself more intensively than the situation of children in Romania, including the problem to which you referred.

I cannot confirm the accuracy of the BBC television report. The fact that something has been broadcast on the BBC does not automatically mean that it is true. Not that I am saying that it is untrue. Simply that we cannot confirm it. It is therefore difficult for me to answer your specific question as to whether children are being bred in Romania for the purpose of sexual abuse with a clear yes or no. What I can say is that, as Parliament’s hearing on the subject of children in Romania has demonstrated over recent weeks in Brussels, the Commission is doing absolutely everything in its power to improve the lot of children in Romania.

I assure the honourable Member that we are doing far more than is our duty and, in fact, far more that what is actually politically permissible within the framework of accession negotiations. I do, however, admit that we are doing so because, in my view, it is also a human rights issue which must be considered in accordance with the political criteria governing accession. But I must again expressly state that I would guard against representing this problem – although I do not think the honourable Member intended to do so – as a problem specific to the accession or candidate countries. It is a problem that should be a cause for concern to everyone in Europe. While we address the question of what we are doing in Romania or in other countries to fight the supply, I would also ask Parliament to address the question of what we are doing to fight the demand.

  President. –

Question No 36 by Anna Karamanou (H-0289/00):

Subject: Albanian prostitution rings in Europe

The French newspaper 'Le Monde' recently featured a report stating that Albanian 'white-slavers' had taken advantage of the war in Kosovo and the illegal immigration networks operating between Albania and Italy and were sexually exploiting some three hundred thousand women – mostly from Kosovo, but also from Moldavia, Romania and Bosnia – in France, Germany and Belgium. The women are forced into prostitution by threats and violence, and the Albanian pimps often pretend to be Kosovars in order to acquire refugee status. Will the Commission say what measures it is taking and what policies it is promoting to combat this phenomenon, whether it has any data on the increased movement of women from Eastern European countries, what results have been achieved by various programmes and what is being done to promote the harmonisation of the penal legislation of the Member States and to coordinate efforts to combat the trade in women?

Second part

Questions to Mrs Schreyer

  Vitorino, Commission. – (PT) Mr President, the Commission is perfectly aware, as it demonstrated exhaustively in the two communications it transmitted to the European Parliament on this matter, the first in November 1997 and the second in December 1998, of the need for coordinated and multidisciplinary action at European level, for both preventing and combating trafficking in women.

The Commission has been supporting and will continue to support various non-governmental organisations involved in this field in various applicant countries, and recently financed two prevention campaigns which we feel were very successful, one in Poland and one in Hungary. At the same time, the same type of campaign has been funded by the American government, as part of the transatlantic agenda, concerning trafficking in women for exploitation in Ukraine and Bulgaria.

In the area of police cooperation, the Commission wishes to remind honourable Members that in 1996 Europol was given a mandate by the Council to combat trafficking in human beings, with the basic aim of ensuring that all networks of traffickers working in Europe would be closed down. With regard to criminal issues, the Council would like to repeat that it intends to present a set of legislative proposals to the Council and the European Parliament by the end of the current presidency. The aim of these proposals is to go beyond the February 1997 joint action and to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 48 of the Tampere European Summit conclusions, with a view to adopting a framework decision leading to the joint definition of trafficking in human beings and the prosecution and punishment of those involved.

Finally, the Commission also wishes to emphasise that through the STOP and Daphne programmes, it has already funded numerous cooperation and training projects in the area of combating trafficking in human beings, specifically against the trafficking of women for sexual exploitation, and through these programmes has brought together the relevant bodies, namely police and judicial authorities, non-governmental organisations and social services. The Commission intends in the course of 2000 to present the European Parliament with a new legal basis for the STOP programme for the period 2001-2005. Under this new legal basis for STOP, we will also be able to fund projects for combating trafficking in human beings submitted by non-governmental organisations and by public authorities from the applicant countries themselves.

Lastly, concerning the specific situation in Albania, the Commission acknowledges that networks trafficking in human beings originating in the Balkans represent a major concern, due to the increasing number of cases being seen in European countries. We therefore acknowledge the fact that under the Stability Pact for the Balkans, priority must be given to combating trafficking in human beings. I can even answer the honourable Member by saying that a group of experts is already working on identifying the best actions for combating the networks of traffickers in human beings and that I myself had an opportunity recently, on a mission to Greece, to exchange ideas with the Greek Minister for Home Affairs, in order enlist the cooperation of his government in establishing these actions and priorities, bearing in mind the action that Greece is already developing bilaterally on the trafficking of human beings in the Balkans.

  Karamanou (PSE). – (EL) Commissioner, thank you for your answer, which I find partially satisfactory as I am well aware of your personal interest in the matter and of the initiatives you have undertaken to combat prostitution rings. However, we must admit that we have not been very successful so far, since the number of rings has increased and we have recently received reports of abuse, particularly of Albanian and Kosovar women. Of course, this issue is bound up with the economic, social and political conditions which prevail in the Balkans and which have resulted in the poverty and overexploitation of vulnerable sections of the population, such as women. However, Commissioner, we must also admit that the intervention of the EU’s institutions has been both inadequate and ineffective. Are you aware, Commissioner, that concentration camps still exist where women are raped before being forced into prostitution? European women are particularly concerned as to whether there is any political will to dismantle these prostitution rings, whether there is any police or judicial cooperation and whether any victim support measures are in place.

  Vitorino, Commission. – (PT) I share the honourable Member’s view that much still remains to be done in the fight in this area and I therefore think that what I said here earlier today is important: the Commission acknowledges the fact that under the Stability Pact for the Balkans, priority must be given to the fight against trafficking in human beings. In fact, establishing normal economic and social conditions throughout the Balkans is an essential instrument in combating social exclusion and thus combating trafficking in human beings. In any event, the Commission acknowledges that there are no completely reliable statistics on the volume of the annual traffic in human beings, and I can tell you that we have been working very hard on improving the coordination and circulation of information between the Member States’ police forces and Europol so that we have a more accurate and realistic picture of the size of the problem. The future Swedish Presidency has given a commitment to proposing to the Justice and Home Affairs Council, at the beginning of next year, a set of measures for harmonising crime statistics, so that we can make a more accurate and exact assessment of the scale of this activity.

With regard to campaigns, I must tell the honourable Member that the Commission’s assessment is that the prevention campaigns have been successful in the sense that they have significantly not only raised awareness of the risks and the dangers of trafficking in human beings in the countries of origin, but they have also enjoyed the cooperation and commitment of the police and judicial authorities in the applicant countries. I admit, however, that there is a problem that is very difficult to resolve, which is that many of these countries are today not the countries of origin, but are merely countries of transit for thousands of women who are the victims of this trafficking. This requires an improvement in Europol’s cooperation with police forces in the applicant countries. Only last month, the Council gave the director of Europol a mandate to develop this bilateral cooperation between that institution and police forces in the applicant countries. I think that this means that we are on the right track.

  President. – I am going to ask you to be brief and I am going to be brief. This is the Rule in this House. For your information, in Annex IIB(3) of the Rules of Procedure, there are some recommendations for cases such as this when there is no time for questions. Therefore, in application of the said recommendations, we will allow just one supplementary question per subject and only 30 seconds, which may extend to 35, but no more, in order to reformulate the questions.

  President. –

Question No 37 by María Izquierdo Rojo (H-0272/00):

Subject: Agricultural budget for foreign policy activities in Kosovo

With regard to the budgetary forecasts, will agricultural funds be used to foot the bill for Kosovo? Are EUR 300m to be deducted from the items earmarked for agriculture funding to cover the costs of Kosovo?

  Schreyer, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Izquierdo Rojo, reconstruction in Kosovo and the stabilisation of South-Eastern Europe are among the most important tasks facing the European Union over the next few years. This has been emphasised in numerous Council and Parliament resolutions, most recently in Lisbon, and for the Commission, this task does, without doubt, have the top priority which it requires.

The funds required for this task need to be anchored in the budget accordingly. This task was not included in the Council resolution on the financial perspectives for 2000-2006 at the Berlin summit last spring. The resolution on Agenda 2000 was taken, I would remind you, on the same day that the war in Kosovo broke out. In the interinstitutional agreement on the financial perspectives concluded between Parliament, the Council and the Commission in May 1999, Parliament and the Council decided to call on the Commission, in view of developments in the Balkans, to submit the necessary budgetary proposals, if necessary in the form of a proposal to revise the financial perspectives. It is precisely this call that the Commission is addressing.

It has proceeded by taking the following steps: first by estimating the sum in aid needed from the EU budget; secondly, by setting new priorities within foreign policy activities, so that funds can be redeployed for South-Eastern Europe and, thirdly, by proposing a redeployment between categories, i.e. between the various political areas. One of the reasons for the proposal to redeploy EUR 300 billion from the expenditure budgeted as maximum expenditure for agriculture was as follows: the financial perspectives make provision for an increase of EUR 2.8 billion for agricultural expenditure from 2000 to 2001. Because the Council reduced the budget estimates by EUR 400 million for the year 2000 in comparison with the maximum amount or ceiling set for 2000, the maximum rate of increase for next year would have been as high as EUR 3.2 billion.

In the external aid area, on the other hand, the figures in the financial perspectives would have resulted in a reduction in expenditure next year in comparison with this year and I think that everyone is agreed that this does not really reflect the actual situation and actual requirements. The Commission therefore decided to propose a redeployment of EUR 300 billion to the budgetary authority so that the increase in agricultural expenditure would be correspondingly lower. I hope that, when faced with these realities, Parliament will support the Commission proposal.

  Izquierdo Rojo (PSE). – (ES) The Commissioner confirms our suspicions that Commissioner Fischler is hiding things from us and hiding himself as well. I am not surprised that he left the chamber hardly ten minutes ago because this proposal is shameful. It takes from agriculture an amount to pay for a United Nations mission in Kosovo, in European Union resources and agricultural policy resources. And then we have a Commissioner who is denying farmers subsidies for nuts, whose production they are going to lose, and who is denying European agriculture the aid to deal with the effects of the drought.

All of this demonstrates that Agenda 2000 has been nothing but a great firework display. This is a disgrace for European agriculture. It does not surprise me that given this outrage the Commissioner responsible… This is a disgrace! A disgrace!

  Martin, David W. (PSE). – Mr President, I hope I can risk Mrs Izquierdo's wrath by saying that I agree with the Commissioner. I want to put it to her that it is far better to reduce the rate of growth in agriculture in order to protect the money that is currently going to the very poor in this world, because the alternative would be to squeeze further the budget lines in category 4. It would be unacceptable to find money for Kosovo – which I support – at the expense of the very poor in the world. Does the Commissioner agree with that?

  Schreyer, Commission. – (DE) I should like to thank the honourable Member for his remarks. I should also like to clarify that it is really not in the nature of my colleague, Mr Fischler, to run off and hide. Clearly there are new priorities and new tasks and everyone here in this House must suggest how these new priorities can be funded. The Commission has taken the step for which provision is made in the interinstitutional agreement, i.e. to examine the extent to which funds can be redeployed in the relevant categories and then make another proposal. We have examined this carefully. Mr Patten and Mr Nielson have come to the conclusion that a total of EUR 1.6 billion could be redeployed in the external aid area for south-eastern Europe and I think that we really must acknowledge that this step has been taken.

In addition, there is a further funding requirement and I should like to emphasise once again that the growth rate in the agricultural policy area is extraordinarily high for next year and my colleague Mr Fischler has accurately calculated the extent to which a reduction in agricultural expenditure by what is a small amount for the agricultural budget is feasible. I should like to state clearly at this point that this redeployment will not of course have any effect on income support for farmers. I should also point out that the Commission will propose that even the expenditure budgeted for promoting and developing the countryside be increased to its ceiling next year. But I think that it is our common responsibility to find an answer, including a financial answer, as far as the important obligation that the European Union has in south-eastern Europe is concerned.

  President. –

Question No 38 by Göran Färm (H-0287/00):

Subject: Structural measures to overcome delays in payments

The EU budget is failing in that commitment authorisations are not being adequately matched by payments. Payments as a proportion of total commitments have fallen over many years and barely 80 per cent of commitments, reportedly, are paid out. One of the reasons for this situation is the delays in implementing the Union's projects. The absurdity of this system is becoming increasingly apparent. The Member States undertake to fund operations under the supervision of the Union, while there are delays in implementing projects which have long lost any legitimate purpose and which, under this system, preposterously, continue to receive funding. Such a situation is untenable, particularly in view of the negative public opinion prevalent in some Member States?

In the Commission's view, what structural measures are required to overcome the delays in payments?

Questions to Mr Kinnock

  Schreyer, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, the Commission is doing its utmost to settle proper payment applications within 60 days. The large majority of invoices can be paid within this period and the number of overdue payments is falling satisfactorily. However, the honourable Member’s question obviously refers not only to settlements in the narrow sense of the word, but to the question of how many commitments from previous budget years have yet to be paid. So what we are talking about is the period of time between the first promise of funds for a project and a specific contract and the period of time between the commitment and the actual payment of funds.

The Commission submitted a working paper to the budgetary authority last year in which it made a comprehensive analysis of developments, broken down by sector and underlying factors, and suggested remedies. The Commission is currently updating this analysis. In terms of volume, commitments, i.e. sums that will need to be converted to payments in later years, were around EUR 71 billion at the end of 1999.

Developments in these old cases are influenced, de facto, by several factors and I think that it is important to make that clear here. The first factor is the ratio between commitment appropriations and payment appropriations which the budgetary authority applies to the budget every year. For the year 2000, for example, the budget contained approximately EUR 4 billion more in commitment appropriations than in funds for payments.

The second factor relates to the take-up of these budgetary funds, i.e. both commitment appropriations and payment appropriations. Finally, the release of commitments for which no more payment applications are expected, so-called sleeping commitments, a somewhat misleading term meaning commitments which obviously will no longer be converted to specific commitments and specific payment commitments, also plays a not inconsiderable role.

However, the Commission is unable to subscribe to the honourable Member’s view that delays in implementing Community projects robs them of any legitimate purpose; on the contrary. As soon as the Commission comes to the conclusion that no more substantiated payment applications are expected for a project, for example because the project has been suspended or abandoned, it orders the corresponding commitments to be released. This applied to a sum of around EUR 1 billion in 1999.

I should stress that the time lag between overall commitment appropriations and their conversion to specific projects is a feature of many Union programmes. This applies, for example, to multiannual programmes and the most important in quantitative terms are the Structural Funds, which are subject to shared administration, with the Commission making commitment appropriations which are then converted into specific projects at Member State level.

In order to reduce the time lag between promises, specific projects and payment, the budgetary authorities need to decide on a balanced ratio between commitment and payment appropriations and there needs to be real pressure to speed up the implementation of programmes. The Commission has discussed precisely this today as part of the debate on the revision of the financial regulation and I can assure you that we intend to change the rules in order to tighten up the time scale. I hope that we can count on your support.

  Färm (PSE). – (SV) Thank you for your answer. I am pleased that the Commission really has taken note of the problem and intends doing what it can to ensure that the payments are made more quickly.

Commissioner Patten pointed out a while ago in the Committee on Budgets that, within category 4, there are eight and a half year-old commitments which have still not been paid out. This state of affairs indicates either that we have major problems in implementing the budget efficiently or that we ought, in fact, to have some kind of deadline or time limit which would be much tougher when it came to writing off old commitments. Perhaps both these matters are problems which the Commission ought, in that case, to do something about.

  Schreyer, Commission. – (DE) I should like to inform the honourable Member that an analysis has shown that it takes approximately one and a half years to convert commitment appropriations into specific contracts. That is all well and good, but there are also old, sleeping commitments and you may be interested to know that another 20 posts were recently made available, in addition to the 60 posts decided for the SCR last December, in order to see which commitments no longer apply and can be cleared up. I should like to offer my warmest thanks for your suggestion. That is exactly the approach which the Commission will take during the revision of the financial regulation and I am therefore sure of at least one person’s support in Parliament.

  Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?

  Schreyer, Commission. – (DE) The honourable Member is right; it is in fact fundamental if the Union’s reputation is to be enhanced that both the time lag which I mentioned between promises, to call a spade a spade, and specific contracts must be reduced and payments must be made when invoices, i.e. substantiated payment applications are filed. Of course benchmarking means that no more than 60 days should lapse and, as I said, more and more payments are being settled within this period. Of course the aim is to have few, if any exceptions.

  President. – Thank you very much, Mrs Schreyer.

Since the time allotted to Mrs Schreyer has elapsed, Question No 39 will be replied to in writing.⁽²⁾

  President. –

Question No 40 by Martin Callanan (H-0332/00):

Subject: Institutional reform

In the Action Plan on Reform it is stated that an ‘external legal expert’ should sit in an advisory capacity on Disciplinary boards.

What is the excact definition of this ‘external legal expert’, and what legal expertise will this person be required to have?

  Kinnock, Commission. – The Commission is at present implementing, or preparing legal grounds for implementing, the different actions set out in the White Paper on reforming the Commission.

In his question the honourable Member is probably referring to actions 57 and 58 of the Reform Strategy Action Plan which, amongst other things, specifies commitment to making proposals for the establishment of an interinstitutional disciplinary board.

The Action Plan does not, however, specify that an external legal expert should sit on the board. The Commission will be presenting detailed proposals for the modernisation of disciplinary procedures and related arrangements in a consultative document which is scheduled for publication in October. The document will include recommendations for improving administrative procedures and for making relevant amendments to the Staff Regulations. Consultation on those proposals is a legal requirement and the views of Parliament and Member States, as well as those of the staff, will naturally be taken into account on all relevant matters, including the possible use of external expertise on the interinstitutional disciplinary board.

  Callanan (PPE-DE). – I thank the Commissioner for his reply.

Following on from the Van Buitenen affair and the Commission's fairly lamentable reaction to it, is there not a case that these disciplinary boards – and especially those called for whistle-blowers – should be independent of the Commission altogether?

  Kinnock, Commission. – I am grateful to the honourable Member for his question. The affair of Mr van Buitenen was conducted completely in compliance with the existing Staff Regulations and however tested, I am sure that any fair-minded person is bound to come to that conclusion.

So far as whistle-blowing is concerned, and as the honourable Member may know, we will be putting forward very comprehensive proposals for radical change in current arrangements which will, when they are implemented – hopefully with the assistance of this Parliament as a legislature – provide the European Union institutions with the best, fairest and most effective system for ensuring that the duty of officials to report their suspicions of wrong-doing will be fully accessible and made totally effective.

  President. –

Question No 41 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (H-0342/00):

Subject: Institutional reform

At present, ‘whistle-blowing’ means that a member of the Commission staff has to breach Articles 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations, accordingly, if someone does come forward as a whistle-blower, he/she will almost certainly be disciplined.

Point 47 of your action plan makes reference to this situation but offers no remedy for it. How do you plan to address this? Are your staff currently examining this problem and, if so, which members of your Cabinet or Directorate-General are actively involved in finding a solution to this contradiction?

Questions to Mr Byrne

  Kinnock, Commission. – Mr President, the honourable Member's question refers to the Commission's proposals on whistle-blowing in the consultative document on reform adopted by the Commission on 18 January 2000. Following that, more detailed orientations were set out in the White Paper on reforming the Commission which was adopted, published and presented to this Parliament on 1 March.

In specific response to the honourable Member's question, Articles 12 and 17 of the current Staff Regulations do not prevent members of staff from reporting wrong-doing within the Commission and it is consequently not the case that officials have to breach the regulations in order to properly report suspicions or concerns.

In addition, last June the Commission decision implementing the regulation establishing the anti-fraud office, OLAF, explicitly made the provision that officials and servants of the Commission, and I quote, "who become aware of evidence which gives rise to the presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud, corruption or any other illegal activities detrimental to the interest of the Communities" are obliged to inform their hierarchy or the Secretary-General or the Director of the European anti-fraud office, OLAF.

That legal text also specifically guarantees that officials and other servants of the Commission shall, and I quote, "in no way suffer inequitable or discriminatory treatment as a result of having communicated such information". It follows that Articles 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations do not prevent staff from reporting wrong-doing either within the Commission or to OLAF. In neither case would disciplinary action result from making such reports.

In the White Paper on reform and elsewhere, the Commission has made direct commitments to reforms which will further improve rules related to the reporting of suspected wrong-doing. More precise rules on the rights and obligations of officials to report wrong-doing through internal channels and to OLAF are required, and rules defining external channels for the reporting of alleged wrong-doing need to be compiled and proposed, as they will be.

These rules on whistle-blowing will be put forward for introduction into the amended Staff Regulations and officials who follow them would not be subject to disciplinary action. The Commission will present detailed proposals in a document scheduled for October of this year. As the law requires, consultations on those proposals will be undertaken with staff and with the other European Union institutions.

Preparatory work on the proposals is progressing under the Director-General for Administration. One member of my cabinet has specialist responsibility for reform of personnel policy, including whistle-blowing, and others are naturally actively involved in the overall issue.

  Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Further to my question, as the Commissioner has just stated, the Commission is now drawing up its "whistle-blowing" charter to a certain extent. Will this be framed, for example, along the lines of the Swedish Government's or the British Government's rules on whistle-blowing? Could the Commissioner inform Parliament as to the exact circumstances in which Paul van Buitenen now finds himself? Is he still being disciplined by the Commission and has any of his pay which was docked in the past been refunded to him?

  Kinnock, Commission. – I am grateful to the honourable Member for his question. Firstly, the development of the proposals relating to whistle-blowing will take full account of best practice in several of the Member States. The Commission is acutely aware of the provision long established in Nordic democracies, recently developed also in the Public Disclosure Act in the United Kingdom, and several other comparable pieces of legislation.

As the honourable Member would expect, this institution will take account of the breadth of provision and seek to ensure that in terms of accessibility, usability and career security we provide the best possible attainable system to ensure effective whistle-blowing because we believe it to be appropriate as a complement to good conduct in an international publicly accountable administration.

As far as Mr van Buitenen is concerned, he took up employment on 1 April in the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection in Luxembourg in a very responsible job, as the House would expect. He is not currently the subject of any disciplinary procedure and the honourable Member should be aware that immediately after he ended his period of suspension last April Mr van Buitenen's full pay, conditions, status and pension rights were restored, as were his rights in all other respects. I reported to this House previously that Mr van Buitenen, a short time after ending his period of suspension, was informed that he had a right to seek employment in any of the European Union institutions in a job for which he was qualified. He made a couple of applications, one of which was for a job in the Commission. He was successful in that application and I am pleased to say that he was duly appointed.

  President. – We thank Vice-President Kinnock for his replies.

Since the time allotted to Mr Kinnock has elapsed, Questions Nos 42 and 43 will be replied to in writing.⁽³⁾

  President. – As the authors are not present, Questions Nos 44 to 48 lapse.

Question No 49 by Lone Dybkjær (H-0284/00):

Subject: Møllergårdens Vivaldi – a Shetland pony

The Committee on Petitions decided on 15 May 1997 to examine a case concerning the Shetland pony, Møllergårdens Vivaldi, from Denmark, which the Swedish authorities refused to register as a stallion in Sweden. In an answer dated 29 October 1997, the Commission concluded that the Swedish authorities were in breach of Commission Decision 96/78 of 10 January 1996⁽⁴⁾ and Council Directive 90/427 of 26 June 1990⁽⁵⁾. The Swedes have since changed the rules. However, the Commission has not yet established whether the Swedish authorities are now complying with current EU rules.

Information received this year from the Swedish Shetland Society indicates that the Swedes are not complying with the rules in that a pony must still have been shown in a stallion prize competition before it can be used in Sweden. In order to be approved for breeding in Sweden, a stallion must undergo an examination of its pedigree to be entered in the Swedish national register. This must be contrary to EU rules as it is to be expected that a stallion which is already approved in one Member State should automatically be approved in another Member State.

Is the Commission of the opinion that the Swedish authorities are complying with common rules? If not, how will the Commission ensure that the Swedish authorities comply with EU legislation in this respect?

  Byrne, Commission. – A first-class Danish Shetland pony stallion named Vivaldi and his progeny were denied entry into the main section of the Swedish Shetland pony stud book. The dispute between what I might describe as a courageous private breeder from one Member State and a breeding association in another Member State, reflects shortcomings in implementation by Member States of both the spirit and letter of related Community law, in particular Directive 90/427 on zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in Equidae.

I wish to remind you that it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that any dispute is settled by action to be taken by the competent authorities in cooperation with the organisation maintaining the stud book of the same breed or even the stud book of origin of the breed.

The Commission, following its inquiries, was officially assured that the Swedish stud book rules had been aligned with EC legislation. However, in the light of new information, the Commission undertakes to take up the case again and to arrange for a zootechnical inspection mission, should this be required.

  Dybkjær (ELDR). – (DA) I should like to thank you for your answer. I assume that the Commission will take immediate action on this matter, or will it be a case of the Commission having to be approached again before anything is done? I should like to point out that what we are concerned with here is an individual citizen whose livelihood has been affected. It is a matter costing an incredible amount of money. As some of us who have been involved with the equine trade know, there is a great deal of money at stake here. It has cost an ordinary citizen, who has made a business out of horses, an incredible amount of money because Swedish associations have not been willing to approve his stallion. I would therefore ask whether it is once again necessary to make an application in connection with this matter. Given all the talk currently of the Commission doing something for citizens, might not, rather, the Commission be expected to take the initiative directly?

  Byrne, Commission. – I thank the Member for her supplementary question. As I indicated earlier, this is essentially a matter between two Member States. The Danish Breeding Association, in my opinion, should have taken up this issue with the Swedish Association. It is not really the role of the Commission to develop this issue further but it is doing so in the manner I have indicated in an effort to assist the private breeder who – I perfectly agree with you – should not be compelled to have to go through these steps to seek a result in this particular issue. As I have indicated, in the light of new information, the Commission undertakes to take up this case again and, if necessary, to arrange for a zootechnical inspection mission, should this be required.

  McKenna (Verts/ALE). – The way Question Time is run is not acceptable. Firstly, it does not start on time. We had group meetings; I was watching the screen and you jumped from Question 41 to 49. That makes it impossible for Members to be here. In addition, Question Time did not start at the time stated on the agenda. How are we meant to function in this way? It makes it virtually impossible for us and is not a fair procedure.

  President. – Mrs McKenna, today’s Question Time has been ratified by the plenary in this House. It was explained this morning at the beginning of the sitting, we have accepted certain rules and we have skipped questions when the authors have not been present. I am therefore very sorry that we now have to conclude Question Time. We especially thank Mr Byrne who has been here all afternoon so that he could answer questions.

Since the time allotted to questions to the Commission has elapsed, Questions Nos 50 to 93 will be replied to in writing.⁽⁶⁾

That concludes Questions to the Commission.

(The siting was suspended at 8.10 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTIN
Vice-President