Parliamentary questions and answers
I regularly ask parliamentary questions in Strasbourg and Brussels to get answers on your behalf. If you have an issue that you would like me to ask a question on please get in touch.
Digging deeper.
Joining the euro - (potential) candidate countries.
Q -
Does the Commission favour the following countries
joining the euro zone should they accede to the EU?
Albania - Bosnia and Herzegovina - Croatia - Iceland - Macedonia -
Montenegro - Serbia - Turkey.
A -
Although all the countries listed in the question
have the ultimate ambition of joining the EU, they are at varied stages
of the accession process.
For applicant countries joining the EU, following the successful
completion of negotiations in all chapters including a chapter on
Economic and Monetary Policy, there is an acquis obligation to adopt the
euro once they fulfil the necessary conditions, notably a high degree of
sustainable convergence as defined by the criteria set out in Article
140(1) TFEU (i.e. price stability; sustainability of the government
financial position; exchange rate stability; and convergence of
long-term interest-rates). Accession to the euro area is decided by the
Council, on a proposal from the Commission and a recommendation by euro
area Ministers, after consultation of the European Parliament and
discussion by the European Council.
Budget deficit and the Maastricht treaty
Q1 -
According to the Maastricht Treaty, no Member State
is to exceed its yearly budget deficit by the equivalent of 3% of gross
domestic product.
Will the Commission enforce this criterion by the year end?
If not, are any plans currently being considered to enforce the
principle?
Q2 -
According to the Maastricht Treaty, no Member State
is to exceed its yearly budget deficit by the equivalent of 3% of gross
domestic product.
Does the Commission maintain a record of countries who have violated the
principle?
Q3 -
According to the Maastricht Treaty no Member is to
exceed its yearly budget deficit by the equivalent of 3 % of gross
domestic product.
Is the Commission planning to introduce sanctions against the countries
violating the principle?
If so, what kind of sanctions are being proposed?
A -
In accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union and the Stability and Growth Pact, specifically
Council Regulation (EC) 1467/97 , excessive deficit procedures have been
opened against all EU Member States running a budget deficit of more
than 3% of GDP for a given calendar year (or financial year in the case
of the United Kingdom), where the deficit is not close to that threshold
and the deviation from the threshold is not temporary and exceptional.
Currently such procedures are ongoing for 23 EU Member States, with
deadlines for the correction of the excessive deficit ranging between
2011 and 2015. All Member States for which the excessive deficit
procedure has been opened are subject to continuous monitoring and,
following the October notification of fiscal data and the next autumn
forecast, a reassessment of the situation will be carried out.
So far sanctions are envisaged for euro area Member States at an only
very late stage of the excessive deficit procedure. However, the reform
of the EU's economic governance which can be expected to enter into
force by the end of 2011 or the beginning of 2012 will make it the rule
to implement them much earlier. Non-interest bearing deposits amounting
to 0.2% of GDP then may already be imposed on a euro area Member State
as the Council decides that an excessive deficit exists, in case of
particularly serious violations of the requirements for budgetary
discipline. Moreover, if no effective action with regard to correct the
excessive deficit is forthcoming, the euro area Member State will be
subject to a 0.2% of GDP fine. The decisions on the imposition of
sanctions will be taken by reverse qualified majority voting, thereby
making it much more difficult to stall such decisions. This should
clearly make sanctions a more credible deterrent and by implication
strengthen fiscal discipline.
For a full record of ongoing and closed excessive deficit procedures
please refer to the dedicated website
here.
Confidential beneficiaries of EU aid - follow-up questions.
Q - 1. Will the
Commission outline what if any scrutiny is given to ensure the 700
beneficiaries use the money properly?
2. Will the Commission set out the criteria
and mechanism that allow a beneficiary to be granted confidentiality?
3. Will the Commission provide a breakdown
of the 700 projects on the basis of which of the three grounds for
confidentiality justifies it in each case?
4. Will the Commission, without naming
beneficiaries, provide a breakdown of the value of the aid per project?
5. How confident is the Commission that the
status of confidentiality is not subject to abuse and how can an MEP be
assured that abuses are not taking place?
6. Would the Commission accept that whereas
commercial confidentiality is normal and reasonable for the voluntary
use of private funds, the use of taxpayers’ money should be subject to
more demanding criteria, and does it therefore ever make transparency a
condition of the granting of aid - and if, not why not?
7. Would the Commission accept that the
granting of confidentiality in the case of EU aid should be an
exceptional measure, as these funds come from taxpayers, but that the
number – 700 – of such confidential beneficiaries and the total amount
involved suggest that it is a routine practice, with confidentiality
being granted far too easily?
8. Will the Commission set out to reduce the
incidence of confidentiality being granted?
9. Will the Commission state whether the
frequency of the granting of confidentiality is increasing or
decreasing?
A -
1. The Commission carries out the selection
procedures, implement the grant agreements and proceeds with all
mandatory ex ante and ex posts controls, irrespective of the decision to
publish the beneficiary's names in Financial Transparency System (FTS).
2. The criteria to classify a beneficiary as
confidential are contained in the legal acts detailed in the
Commission's previous answer to the Honourable Member E-005457/2011 .
It is the responsibility of each Authorising Officer to decide, on the
basis of the criteria laid down in the legislation, whether information
on a beneficiary of funds is subject to confidentiality.
3. See reply to point 9
4. The FTS system aims at providing
information on the amount and the name of the beneficiaries of EU Funds.
However, it is not designed, and does not aim, at providing detailed
information on each project, nor the specific reasons which justify the
confidentiality. This specific information is not kept in centralised
database and, therefore, the Commission can only provide this specific
information on a case by case basis and upon written request.
Concrete information on a given beneficiary or a project qualified as
confidential may be provided to the Honourable Member in the context of
the procedure set up in the provisions of the Framework Agreement on
relations between the European Parliament and the Commission and its
Annex II.
5. The Commission applies the rules through
the different checks and controls which are integrated in the
Commission's financial circuit, and which are irrespective of whether
the name is published or not in the FTS.
The Commission strictly applies the rules through the different checks
and controls which are integrated in the Commission's financial circuit,
and which are irrespective of whether the name is published or not in
the FTS
The Commission is improving the quality of data since the inception of
the FTS in 2007. With 92.000 lines of details published in 2011,
administrative errors based on incorrect encoding may accidentally
happen. In such cases, the Commission makes all possible effort to
remedy any omission. No intentional abuse has been detected so far.
Under the procedure mentioned in point 2, the Parliament may always use
its right of scrutiny to verify that the reasons provided in a
particular case is appropriate and reasonable and that no abuse has been
made.
6. In application of Article 30(3) of the
Financial Regulation, the FTS database provide a consolidated view of
all EU funds spent under centralised management and enable user-friendly
searches of the data to be undertaken, based on relevant criteria. It is
published on the Internet, so as it may be consulted instantly,
anonymously, world-wide and cost-free.
The FTS is binding and applicable in all Member States. It is not
subject to negotiations and is an inherent condition for all grants and
tenders under centralised management mode.
However, the Legislative Authority has also foreseen cases where
confidentiality should apply because other interests must be protected,
such as the protection of personal data.
7. The confidentially is indeed an
exception, which must be interpreted in a restrictive manner.
However, most cases involving confidential beneficiaries relate to
payments made to natural persons hired by the Commission (such as
technical experts for cooperation projects). In these cases, the
Authorising officer may in principle only publish their identity if this
is necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim. In a recent
judgment, the Court of Justice [Volker and Schecke joint cases C-92/09
and C-93/09] has declared illegal rules requiring the publication of the
name of natural persons receiving EU agricultural funds .
8. See reply to point 9
9. As the Honourable Member may see in the
FTS, confidential beneficiaries have increased since 2007, both in
number and amounts. The number of confidential beneficiaries, in
particular when it relates to information concerning natural persons,
does not depend on the Commission policy but on the specific legal
requirements of confidentiality attached to each case.
.png)
Where
is Turkey?
Q - In
the view of the Commission, is Turkey predominantly in the geographical
continent of Europe or predominantly in the geographical continent of
Asia?
A -
The borders of the European continent are not
defined under international law.
Accession negotiations take place in accordance with article 49 of the
Treaty, which refers to "European states". In its opinion on Turkey's
application for EU membership, the Commission declared it to be a
European state in the sense of Article 49 of the Treaty. In opening the
negotiations on 3 October 2005, the Council referred to article 49 as
well. The European Parliament, in its resolution of 15 December 2004,
also supported the start of accession negotiations.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which Turkey is
a member, stated in its Recommendation 1247 (1994) that "the Council of
Europe (…) should, in principle, base itself on the generally accepted
geographical limits of Europe" and added that "all member states of the
Council of Europe are European."
The Commissioners' travel and representation costs in 2009 and
2010.
Q -
Will the Commission state what each individual
Commissioner spent on travel and representation respectively in 2009 and
2010?
A -
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to
its answer to written question P-3005/11 for the total costs of the
missions carried out for official purposes by each Commissioner in 2009
and 2010. With regard to the representation expenses incurred by each
Commissioner in 2009 and 2010, the Honourable Member is asked to refer
to the table which the Commission is sending directly to the Honourable
Member and to the Parliament Secretariat.
The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the
Parliament's Secretariat a table showing the total costs for the
missions undertaken by each Commissioner in 2010.
It should be noted that the destinations, reasons for and length of the
missions undertaken by Members of the College, as well as the
composition of the delegations accompanying them where necessary, fall
within the Commissioners' area of responsibility in exercising their
powers and as part of their general remit of representing the
Institution. (Spreadsheet with commissioner's expenses is
here.)
Record of Commissioners.
Q -
Upon appointment to Commissioner is the past record
of the candidate taken into account? If so, how?
A -
Before Commissioners are appointed, the President
elect of the Commission receives the proposals from the Member States
governments. The proposals are accompanied by their Curriculum Vitae.
Commissioners designate are required to issue a declaration of interests
which must be completed and made available before their hearings by
Parliament. In their declarations of interests, Commissioners-designate
state inter alia their previous activities, namely the posts they held
over the last ten years in foundations or similar bodies, in educational
institutions and in the governing, supervisory and advisory organs of
companies and other bodies devoted to commercial or economic activities.
They are then submitted to hearing by Parliament that finally approves
the new Commission.
So, in short, Commissioner's designate are proposed by the governments
of the Member States, approved by the Council with the agreement of the
President-elect of the Commission, scrutinised and approved by
Parliament, and finally formally appointed by the European Council.
Monetary policy.
Q -
Can the Commission confirm that it has no plans to
impose a uniform monetary policy on those countries that have decided to
stay out of the euro?
A -
Member States outside the euro area retain their
powers in the field of monetary policy, in line with the Treaty and its
Protocols. The Commission does not interfere in the conduct of monetary
policy.
Review of glyphosate.
Q -
The new report, ‘Roundup and birth defects: Is the
public being kept in the dark?’, presents evidence that even the
pesticide industry knew from its own tests as long ago as the 1980s that
the herbicide glyphosate/Roundup causes birth defects in laboratory
animals at high doses, and has known since the 1990s that these effects
also occurred at lower and mid doses. Approval has currently been
extended until 2015, but the Commission’s slowness in preparing new data
requirements for the more stringent new pesticide regulation (EC) No
1107/2009 means that glyphosate will not be reviewed under up to date
data requirements until 2030.
1. In the light of the evidence in the new
report, will the Commission cancel its delay in reviewing glyphosate/Roundup?
2. Will the Commission arrange a review of
glyphosate/Roundup as soon as the new data requirements are published,
under up to date data requirements?
3. Given that the German federal office BVL
told the Commission as recently as last year that there was no evidence
of teratogenicity (ability to cause birth defects) for glyphosate, will
the Commission ask BVL to publicly retract its advice?
A -
The Honourable Member is invited to refer to
Commission's reply to written questions P-10522/2010, E-6135/2011 and
E-6375/2011 which also relate to the recent report published on the
internet and in which the safety in use of glyphosate and its formulated
products is criticised.
Meanwhile, the rapporteur Member State (RMS), Germany, has delivered its
views on the above report and these are currently being examined in the
Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.
Pending the outcome of that examination the Commission considers it is
not appropriate to withdraw the current inclusion of glyphosate or to
address specific recommendations to the German authorities.
Glyphosate is included in the renewal programme laid down by Regulation
(EC) No 1141/2010 . In 2012, a supplementary dossier will have to be
submitted by the applicant to the RMS for the re-assessment of the
substance. The scientific re-assessment of the substance shall have to
be concluded at the latest in 2014 in case of EFSA consultation, and the
decision making process by the Commission (approval or ban) should be
completed by end of 2015.
The Commission is currently working on the new data requirements, which
are expected to be adopted early 2012.
Echinococcus multiocularis (dog tapeworm).
Q -
I have been made aware by constituents of the EU
veterinary health harmonisation requirements which will allegedly no
longer permit the UK to insist on the immunisation of pet dogs coming
into the country against Echinococcus multilocularis (dog tapeworm),
which is potentially transmissible to humans and potentially fatal.
Can the Commission confirm whether if this is true? If so, is the
Commission aware of the negative effect and threat to human health the
legislation might pose and the fact that its implementation would remove
a long standing rule designed to prevent and eradicate a terrible
parasitic disease in both humans and animals?
A -
The issue of the tapeworm Echinococcus
multilocularis has already been addressed by the Commission in its reply
to the previous written question E-004928/2011 by Mr Tannock.
Following extensive expert consultation, the Commission adopted on 14
July 2011 Commission delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EC)
No 998/2003 as regards preventive health measures for the control of
Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs (C(2011) 5016 final). For
certain Member States, including the United Kingdom the proposed
measures maintain the same level of protection against the parasite as
previously established by their national legislation, as long as no
occurrence of the infection is recorded in the framework of the
harmonised wildlife surveillance programme they are to implement.
This proposal was submitted to the European Parliament and Council for a
2+2 months scrutiny. If the Parliament and Council do not oppose this
act it could be published in the Official Journal of the European Union
and enter into force before the aforementioned national measures expire
on 31 December 2011.
Animal welfare.
Q -
The long-distance transport of animals to slaughter
or for fattening often entails severe welfare problems and suffering for
the animals concerned. The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe
recommends that, ‘Animals should be reared as close as possible to the
premises on which they are born and slaughtered as close as possible to
the point of production’. In light of this, is the Commission prepared
to (i) develop a strategy to enable the long-distance transport of
animals to be phased out and (ii) recommend, when it produces its
forthcoming report on Regulation (EC) 1/2005, that a reasonably short
maximum permitted journey time be placed on the transport of animals for
fattening or slaughter?
Analysis of reports by the Food and Veterinary Office reveals poor
levels of enforcement of Regulation (EC) 1/2005 in many Member States.
What steps does the Commission plan to take to secure improved
enforcement?
A -
Indeed the Commission is currently preparing a
report on the impact of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the
protection of animals during transport . The report, which is planned
for adoption during the coming months, will consider the difficulties
related to the proper enforcement of EU rules. In the light of the
report and the foreseen discussions in Parliament and the Council, the
Commission will consider which actions are the most appropriate to
address the problems that may be identified.
Any time the Commission inspection service of the Directorate General
for Health and Consumer Policy (Food and Veterinary Office, FVO)
identifies weaknesses or failures by the competent authorities of the
Member States to carry out their duties, recommendations are made
seeking actions to address these points. The subsequent follow-up
includes an assessment of the action plan provided and, as necessary,
further meetings with the central competent authorities. These follow-up
actions may imply further inspections or, where it is shown that
non-compliance by the Member State's competent authority is general,
systematic and persistent, infringement proceedings can be launched to
secure implementation of EU legislation.
With the aim of improving enforcement, the Commission has also started a
series of meetings with the national contact points for animal welfare
during transport from each competent authority. The discussions aim at
facilitating cooperation and coordination on aspects of official
controls in relation to the long distance transport of animals.
Cost controls for public relations services within the European
External Action Service.
Q -
How does the Commission intend to exercise cost
controls on public relations services within the European External
Action Service? Can the Commission state the budget for the allocation
of services under the ‘framework service contract for communication and
information initiatives and products related to EU’s external
relations’? Can the Commission explain why there is a need to outsource
a contract for communication and information initiatives and products
pertaining to the EU’s external relations, rather than rendering the
services within the European External Action Service?
A -
The Honourable Members refer to the information and
communication budget of the EU in the field of external relations. This
budget is implemented under the responsibility of the Commission and
under the authority of Baroness Ashton as one of its Vice Presidents,
with part being implemented through EU delegations. The budget, which is
set annually by Parliament and Council, remains more or less constant
over the period 2007-2013, except for an increase to broadcast Euronews
in the Farsi language and a one-off increase for the EU’s participation
in the Shanghai World Exposition. The objective is to promote the
interests of the EU and its Member States by providing information on EU
policies to people in third countries.
The specific call for tender referred to is for a maximum of EUR 10
million spread over four years. This tender is simply designed to ensure
continuity of previous actions and is a standard procedure. Having a
competitive public procurement procedure is the most cost-effective way
for the Commission to obtain the necessary support services for running
these activities. The Commission indeed uses service providers for a
number of activities which do not necessarily require statutory staff,
or where there is no in-house expertise.
Revision of pre-accession funding allocated to Turkey.
Q -
In view of the clampdown on journalists in Turkey
by the Turkish Government (The Justice and Development – AK Party), does
the Commission have any plans to review the level of pre-accession
funding allocated to Turkey?
A -
Pre-accession assistance (IPA) to Turkey is usually
linked to the fulfilment of specific conditionalities at project level,
also in the area of the political criteria. For instance, IPA support
for the establishment of the Ombudsman institution in Turkey has been
linked to the adoption of the law establishing the Ombudsman.
In 2010 the Commission has been providing support to create a sound
functioning relationship between judiciary and independent media (the
project Improved Relations Between Mass Media and Judiciary) as well as
an EU-Turkey dialogue project including a specific component targeting
media (project Civil Society Dialogue Between EU and Turkey-III). The
overall objective is the respect for freedom of the media in Turkey.
Moreover, the new draft strategy for pre-accession funding in 2011-2013
defines freedom of expression as one of the priorities to be supported;
consequently the intention of the Commission is to enhance EU assistance
to Turkey in these fields.
The Budget for EU missions.
Q -
By 2001 the EU already had missions in 123
countries and 5 accredited to large international organisations. What
was the budget in 2001 and for all succeeding years? What is the budget
for 2010 and for each of the next ten years?
A -
Answer is
here. (PDF)
EU embassies.
Q -
How many embassies does the EU already have open?
Which are they? How many staff does each have?
A -
The EU currently has 136 Delegations worldwide. The
complete list of Delegations is to be found on the EEAS website
http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/web_en.htm The number of staff per
Delegation is around 40 people on average, including local staff. In
December 2010, the smallest Delegations were the ones in New Zealand and
Vanuatu, with five people each, while the biggest was the one in Ankara
(Turkey), with 130 people.
Twinings tea of Andover.
Q -
Does the Commission believe that the plans by
Twinings to shut its factory in North Shields and reduce its workforce
at Andover, in order to open in Poland using European Regional
Development Fund monies, is fully legally compliant and a legitimate use
of the Fund?
A -
The Commission considers that companies should not
receive funding from the European Development Fund (ERDF) for
investments which would lead to the abolition of jobs by the same
company in another region of the EU, as the net effect of the ERDF
investment would be zero or even negative.
In the particular case referred to by the Honourable Member, the Polish
authorities have informed the Commission that a contract for support was
signed on 4 October 2010 between the Polish managing authority for the
Operational Programme Innovative Economy and R. Twining and Company Sp.
z o.o. The total cost of the project amounts to 174,5 million PLN (c.
EUR 43 million) of which 48,4 million PLN (c. EUR 12 million) is support
from the ERDF.
The Operational Programme Innovative Economy provides that, in the case
of assistance to a large enterprise, the Managing Authority undertakes
to request an assurance from the enterprise that "the assistance will
concern new investments and will not be used for support of investments
that concern the relocation of its production or service facilities from
another Member State of the European Union". However, the Polish
authorities have not requested such an assurance in this case, as this
clause is only relevant when the beneficiary is an entity other than a
Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME).
Based on information provided to the Commission, it appears that R.
Twining and Company Sp. z o.o was established in 2008 falling under the
definition of an SME. Its shares were bought by ABF Overseas Limited on
1 December 2009. At the time of the grant of assistance, R. Twining and
Company Sp. z o.o was still considered an SME, as under Article 2 of
Annex I of Regulation 800/2008 . A company will only become a large
enterprise once the headcount and financial thresholds have been
exceeded for two consecutive accounting periods, i.e. at the start of
2011.
In a meeting with the Polish Minister for regional development on 9
November 2010 the Commissioner responsible for Regional Policy asked the
Minister to look into this matter and to ensure that all applicable
rules concerning the granting of assistance have been and will be
respected in this case. On the basis of the information received from
the Polish authorities, the Commission is examining the need for any
further investigation.
The Honourable Member will be informed of the results of this enquiry.
The definition of 'Roma'.
Q -
How does the Commission define ‘Roma’?
A -
For the purposes of EU policy documents and
discussion, the Commission uses the term ‘Roma’ in a similar way to
Parliament, the Council, the European Council and other EU institutions
as an umbrella term covering various groups, such as Sinti, Travellers,
Kalé and so on, who share fairly similar cultural characteristics and a
history of persistent marginalisation in European society.
While the Commission is aware that applying the term ‘Roma’ to all these
groups is contentious, its intention is not to treat members of these
other groups as culturally the same as Roma. Nonetheless, it considers
it practical and justifiable to use ‘Roma’ as an umbrella term in policy
documents and discussions on issues of social exclusion and
discrimination and not on specific issues of cultural identity.
The Commission's welcome for the result of the referendum in
Turkey
Q -
Does the Commission’s welcome for ‘the approval, by
the Turkish people, of the constitutional reforms in the referendum
which took place on 12 September’ include that part of the reforms which
weakens the independence of the Turkish judiciary?
A -
The Commission has welcomed the adoption by the
Turkish Parliament, and the approval by the Turkish people, of the
constitutional reforms in the referendum which took place on 12
September 2010. These reforms are a step in the right direction as they
address a number of priorities in Turkey's efforts towards fully
complying with EU accession criteria.
However, the Commission has consistently underlined that the impact of
the reforms on the ground will depend on their actual implementation. A
number of enacting laws will be needed and the Commission will follow
their preparation very closely. Meanwhile, the Commission encourages the
Turkish government to show utmost transparency as well as a spirit of
dialogue on the substance of this implementing legislation.
The Commission will provide a detailed analysis of all constitutional
amendments in the upcoming Turkey 2010 Progress Report, which is
scheduled to be published on 9 November 2010.
Benefits of a Customs Union?
Q -
Bearing in mind the relative rarity of the
arrangements, what benefits does the Commission believe arise from
creating a customs union with an applicant prior to full membership?
A -
As a general rule Customs Unions provide for an
area where goods can travel without restrictions and a common external
tariff is applied. Candidate countries are not required to enter into a
Customs Union with the EU in the course of accession negotiations. The
establishment of a Customs Union between a candidate country and the EU
prior to accession could favour economic integration between the two
parties, develop bilateral trade and help prepare the business sector to
the requirements of EU accession.
Legal rights.
Q -
Can the Commission confirm that contracting parties
to commercial and all other agreements – and specifically international
trade agreements – will continue to have the absolute right to write
into an agreement which legal jurisdiction is competent to settle any
dispute, including after the Stockholm Programme has come fully into
force in all its aspects?
A -
The Commission understands that the Honourable
Member refers to agreements whereby parties to international (sales)
contracts agree to submit any dispute concerning the contract concerned
to the jurisdiction of the courts designated in the contract (so-called
"choice of court" agreements).
Union law currently recognises party autonomy with respect to choice of
court. In particular, Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
of judgments in civil and commercial matters ('Brussels I Regulation')
lays down the conditions under which choice of court agreements will be
effective in Europe. In its Report on the application of the Brussels I
Regulation and Green Paper on the review of the Brussels I Regulation ,
the Commission has pointed out possible ways to further strengthen the
effectiveness of choice of court agreements in Europe. The improvement
of the enforceability of choice of court agreements will be one of the
important points for the revision of Regulation 44/2001, which is a
strategic priority of the Commission in 2010.
The respect of party autonomy in the context of choice of court
agreements is a matter which the Union intends to promote beyond the
European borders. The Union has already signed the 2005 Hague Convention
of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, which will permit to
ensure the effectiveness of choice of court clauses at the international
level. The Commission intends to propose the ratification of that
Convention in the future.
Funding for the European Movement.
Q -
What payments or subsidies has the Commission made
or granted to the 'European Movement' to date? Is there any further
funding planned?
A -
The Commission is sending directly to the
Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat a table showing
the payments made to the 'European Movement' from 2005 to June 2010.
The table distinguishes payments made to the different branches of the
organisation "European Movement" in the EU. The total amount paid
was EUR 5,555,341.85.
As regards future funding, the table also shows amounts that have been
committed but have not yet been paid out. The total amount in this case
is EUR 297.622,81.
EU funding for Turkey.
Q -
How are the current indicative allocations for
Turkey – EUR 653.7 million for 2010, EUR 781.9 million for 2011 and EUR
899.5 million for 2012 – to be financed?
A -
The legal basis for the Instrument for
Pre-Accession (IPA) is the Council Regulation 1085/2006 which is
financed by the EU budget under the budgetary heading No 6 – European
Union as a global partner (see COM(2004)101 final) which is part of the
financial perspective 2007-2013. The indicative allocations to Turkey
are set out in the Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework (MIFF).
These are used as a basis for the strategic prioritisation of the
funding as outlined in the Multi-Annual Indicative Planning Document
(MIPD). The latest MIPD for Turkey was adopted in June 2009 and covers
the period 2009-2011. The Commission is currently reviewing the
priorities to be established for the 2011-2013 period together with the
Turkish authorities.
As an example, the total 2010 envelope for Turkey of EUR 653.7 million
will be split between the five IPA components according to the following
allocations and strategic objectives:
IPA I – Transition Assistance and Institution Building (EUR 211,3
million): will support Turkey's progress towards fully meeting the
Copenhagen political criteria, efforts to harmonise with the EU acquis
and promotion of an EU-Turkey Civil Society Dialogue.
IPA II – Cross-Border Cooperation (EUR 9,6 million): will prepare Turkey
for the implementation of the Territorial Cooperation objective of the
EU structural funds and support Turkey's participation in bilateral
cross-border programmes with Member States as well as Turkey's
participation in the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI)
Black Sea Basin programme.
IPA III – Regional Development (EUR 238,1 million): will support three
intervention areas: environment, transport and regional competitiveness.
IPA IV – Human Resources (EUR 63,4 million): will address three key
areas of intervention: employment, education and social inclusion.
IPA V – Rural Development (EUR 131,3 million): three priorities are set
out: adaptation of the agricultural sector and implementing of Community
standards, preparatory actions for agri-environment measures and Leader
and development of the rural economy.
Further details can be found in the 2009-2011 MIPD for Turkey accessible
here:
Subsequently, IPA funds are programmed in line with the established
priorities, on an annual basis for IPA component I and on a multi-annual
basis for IPA Component II-V. The National Programme 2010 under IPA
component I is currently being developed by the Commission and Turkey
and will be presented to the IPA Management Committee and adopted in the
autumn 2010.
EU funding to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Q -
Can the Commission advise how much funding has been
provided to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in pre-accession
assistance, and what further funding is planned?
A -
Pre-accession assistance to the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia over the period 2001-2009 amounts to EUR 456,796
million.
For 2010, the Budget foresees for the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia an amount of EUR 91,684,594. For 2011, the Commission has
proposed in its Draft Budget an amount of EUR 98,028,286. For the years
2012 and 2013, the indicative allocations for the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia under the Multi-Annual Indicative Financial
Framework for the Instrument for Pre-accession assistance are EUR
105,000,000 and EUR 117,000,000.
The allocations as of 2011 are still subject to the annual budgetary
procedure and the decision of the Budgetary Authority.
IPA assistance to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is
implemented according to the five IPA components available to Candidate
Countries: Transition Assistance and Institution Building (Component I),
Cross Border-Cooperation (Component II), Regional Development (Component
III), Human Resources Development (Component IV), and Rural Development
(Component V). In addition, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
continues to benefit from regional and horizontal programmes.
Turkish citizens in other Member States in the event of Turkish
accession to the EU.
Q -
Has the Commission made any assessment of the
number of Turkish citizens and residents who would go to work in other
Member States if Turkey were to become a member of the European Union?
A -
An assessment of the real impact on the EU of the
free movement of workers between Turkey and the EU can only be conducted
once negotiations under this particular chapter of the accession process
have started. Moreover, the Commission recalls the provisions of the
Negotiating Framework of 3 October 2005:
"Long transitional periods, derogations, specific arrangements or
permanent safeguard clauses, i.e. clauses which are permanently
available as a basis for safeguard measures, may be considered. The
Commission will include these, as appropriate, in its proposals in areas
such as freedom of movement of persons, structural policies or
agriculture. Furthermore, the decision-taking process regarding the
eventual establishment of freedom of movement of persons should allow
for a maximum role of individual Member States. Transitional
arrangements or safeguards should be reviewed regarding their impact on
competition or the functioning of the internal market".
The Negotiating Framework can be consulted through this
link.
Financial commitments to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan?
Q -
Will the Commission outline – as comprehensively as
possible – the financial commitments and obligations, both direct and
indirect, of all the EU institutions including the ECB and the EBRD to
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan?
A -
Summary
of EU Assistance to Central Asia: 2007-2013: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz
Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and regional.
EU funding to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Q -
Can the Commission advise how much funding has been
provided to Bosnia and Herzegovina and what further funding is planned?
A -
The EU has provided substantial financial support -
almost EUR 2.9 billion - to Bosnia and Herzegovina since the end of the
war in 1995 - . Between 1995 and 2001, the EU provided more than EUR 540
million for humanitarian assistance. The PHARE, OBNOVA and CARDS
programmes provided more than EUR 1 billion to Bosnia and Herzegovina,
of which EUR 503 million under the CARDS programme in the years 2001 to
2006. In the period 2007-2009, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance
(IPA) has provided EUR 226 million for institution-building, transition
assistance and cross-border cooperation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The current Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework 2010-2013
allocates another EUR 434.2 million to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The key
priorities include the strengthening of rule of law, in particular the
judiciary and the police, the reform of the public administration,
socio-economic development as well as gradual alignment with European
Standards.
In addition to IPA, the EU has made available Macro Financial Assistance
for a total amount of EUR 100 million in 2010.
Moreover, since its creation, the EU has co-financed 53% (or EURO 105.4
million) of operational budget of the Office of the High Representative
(OHR).
Bosnia and Herzegovina is also entitled to benefit from regional and
horizontal programmes under IPA, which amount to a total of EUR 723
million for 2007-2011 for the Western Balkans and Turkey.
EU funding to Albania.
Q -
Can the Commission advise how much EU funding has been
provided to Albania and what further funding is planned?
A -
EU assistance to Albania has totalled almost EUR 1.18
billion. Between 1991 and 2006, the EU provided EUR 635 million under the
PHARE programme and EUR 330 million under the CARDS programme. In the period
2007-2009, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) has provided
EUR 213 million for institution-building, transition assistance and
cross-border cooperation in Albania.
The current Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework 2010-2013 allocates
another EUR 381 million to Albania. The key priorities include the
strengthening of rule of law, in particular the judiciary and the police,
the reform of the public administration, socio-economic development as well
as gradual alignment with European Standards.
In addition to IPA, the Commission has made available Macro Financial
Assistance for a total amount of EUR 150 million until 2007.
Albania is also entitled to benefit from regional and horizontal programmes
under IPA, which amount to a total of EUR 723 million for 2007-2011 for the
Western Balkans and Turkey.
EU funding to Serbia.
Q -
Can the Commission advise how much funding has been
provided to Serbia and what further funding is planned?
A -
The EU provided financial assistance to Serbia through
the Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation
(CARDS) programme for the period 2001-2006 and through the Instrument for
Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) for the period 2007-2010.
Under CARDS, assistance totalled EUR 1 billion.
Under IPA, assistance has totalled EUR 773.3 million and has focussed on
areas such as strengthening the rule of law, human rights, education,
transport, environmental protection and cross-border cooperation.
The current Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2011-2013
allocates another EUR 622.5 million. Key priorities under this include
strengthening the rule of law, in particular the judiciary and the police;
reform of public administration; socio-economic development, as well as
gradual alignment with European standards.
Serbia is also entitled to benefit from regional and horizontal programmes
under IPA, which amount to a total of EUR 723 million for the period
2007-2011 for the Western Balkans and Turkey.
In response to the economic crisis, the Commission has made macro financial
assistance available to Serbia in the form of a loan, amounting to a maximum
of EUR 200 million in order to contribute to Serbia's external financing
needs in 2010.
Finally, a number of civil society organisations, active in the field of
democracy and human rights and based in Serbia, have been supported by the
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, run by the Commission's
Europe-Aid Office, in the form of small amounts of grants.
The UK's involvement in the euro zone rescue package.
Q -
Can the Commission confirm that it will not ask the UK
to contribute further towards the existing euro zone rescue aid package?
A -
The Council Regulation establishing a European
financial stabilization mechanism covers the 27 EU Member States and is
backed by the EU budget. The United Kingdom does participate neither to the
financial support to Greece nor to the establishment of a Special Purpose
Vehicle (SPV) with a view to making loans to a possible beneficiary euro
area Member State.
Questions on the alternative investment fund managers directive
(AIFM).
Q - How will
the regulations proposed in the AIFM Directive enhance the availability of
credit?
A -
As the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund
Managers (AIFM) mainly concerns regulation of different types of investment
funds and is not related to credit institutions or banking activities, no
direct impact on the availability of credit is to be expected. However, in
creating an internal market for alternative investment funds, the proposal
should improve the availability of funds and investment possibilities across
the Union.
Q -
Has the
Commission undertaken, or caused to be undertaken, any studies of the impact
of the proposed directive on alternative investment fund managers (AIFM
Directive) on the balance of financial transactions between Member States
and the rest of the world?
A -
No studies have been undertaken on this specific issue.
Q - Will the
Commission agree to meet a delegation to discuss the impact of the proposed
directive on alternative investment fund managers (AIFM Directive)?
A -
In line with the better regulation agenda,
consultations of stakeholders and impact assessments are an inherent part of
the way Commission services prepare EU initiatives, in particular
legislative proposals. The President, various Commissioners and many
officials of the Commission services have also held numerous meetings with
stakeholders since the adoption of the proposal of the Directive on
Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM).
Q - What analyses or studies, particularly of costs and benefits, has the Commission conducted, or what such analyses or studies does it plan to conduct in relation to the impact of the proposed directive on alternative investment fund managers (AIFM Directive) on the terms of trade and turnover of, and the number of offerings made by, financial institutions, both public and private, in Member States?
A - The Commission has studied the potential impacts of the draft AIFM Directive in its impact assessment (SEC(2009)576). This study was in turn based on a number of other investigations, including external studies, expert groups, and public consultations, probably the most important being:
• Expert groups on alternative investments in the first half of 2006 followed by a public consultation on the expert group reports in the third quarter of 2006 and the same for real estate funds in 2008.
• Two studies on funds that are on the borderline between UCITS (harmonised retail funds) and alternative investment funds (AIF): Comparative study on investment powers December 2006 - January 2008 and Study on the retail distribution of non-harmonised funds December 2007 – September 2008.
• A call for evidence on private placement April – June 2007 and workshops on private placement January – February 2008.
• A consultation on hedge funds in December 2008 – January 2009 and a conference on hedge funds and private equity in February 2009.
After the adoption of the proposal, the Commission has continued its dialogue with stakeholders and has attentively followed the impact assessment and cost benefit analysis work conducted by the Parliament and other interested parties. These findings have fed into the negotiation process between the Council and the Parliament.
Q - Does the Commission anticipate any flight of capital, trade or private equity from Member States to the rest of the world consequent upon the implementation of the proposed AIFM Directive and, if so, can it provide details?
A - One of the lessons learned from the crisis is that a well-regulated financial sector, including regulation of alternative investment funds, is beneficial for all market participants. The Commission is therefore convinced that the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM Directive) will contribute to the creation of an attractive business environment for AIFM in the EU and thereby benefit European professional investors.
As far to the possible flight of capital and trade, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its answers to previous questions.
Britain's yearly payment to remain a member of the EU.
Q - By next year Britain's net contribution will have doubled from what it was in 2008.
In 2020 there will be 4 to 7 new Member States at least . On their current economic performance, each one of the new Member States will be receiving cohesion funds (subsidies by another name) from the date they become members in 2020. Can therefore the British taxpayer anticipate a further doubling in Britain's net contribution to the European Union by 2020 and if not, why not?
A - We are waiting for a reply to the question above.
European Arrest Warrant
Q - Does the Commission intend that citizens of Member Countries extradited to other Member Countries via the European Arrest Warrant are held under the same terms and conditions under which they would have been in their country of citizenship?
A - Article 12 (Keeping the person in detention) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA) provides that when a person is arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority shall take a decision on whether the requested person should remain in detention, in accordance with the law of the executing Member State. The person may be released provisionally at any time in conformity with the domestic law of the executing Member State, provided that the competent authority of the said Member State takes all the measures it deems necessary to prevent the person from absconding.
Falkland Islands
Q - Will the Council confirm its commitment to self-determination of the Falklands in line with the UN Charter?
A - The Council has not discussed this issue.
Non-Eurozone and potential rescue package for Greece.
Q - Can the Commission confirm that the UK and other non-Eurozone members will never be even partly liable for any actual planned or potential rescue package for Greece?
A - Only non euro area Member States have received a financial support from the EU (Hungary, Romania, Latvia). The Heads of State and Government have indicated on 11th February 2010 that euro area Member States will take action, if needed, to safeguard financial stability in the euro area as a whole. They have also noted that the Greek authorities have not requested any financial support.
EU funding for the Ministry of Forestry in Indonesia
Q - 1. How much money is given to the Ministry of Forestry in Indonesia?
2. Which safeguards are in place to ensure that grants given to the Ministry of Forestry in Indonesia, which are given to ensure the preservation of the Indonesian rainforest and a reduction in deforestation, are spent on these goals and not lost or diverted along the way?
3. Is the Commission satisfied with these safeguards? If not, what plans are being considered to strengthen them?
4. How much of the money given so far can be accounted for? What benefits has the funding of this body produced for the taxpayer?
A - 1.Most of the resources provided by the EU to the Forestry sector in Indonesia over the past decades have been channelled under the EC-Indonesia Forestry Program (ECIFP), implemented between the mid-1990s and 2008. This programme included various projects related to biodiversity conservation, forest fire prevention, and sustainable forestry. Some activities were implemented through the Ministry of Forestry. More recently, the EU has committed additional funding to support the implementation of the Forest law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan in Indonesia, implemented through the Ministry of Forestry. In parallel with bilateral cooperation projects, the EU provides funding to civil society organizations under the EU's thematic program for "Environment, Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, including energy" (ENRTP). Various projects funded under this programme have been / are implemented in Indonesia. Breakdown is as follows:
• ECIFP: EUR 81 million disbursed between 1995 and 2008;
• FLEGT Support Project: project on-going for which a budget of EUR 14.9 million has been committed.
• Projects funded under ENRTP: currently four ongoing projects with a budget of EUR 5.2 million.
Additional information on the achievements of these programmes is provided under the reply to question four, below.
2. The EU applies strict rules for both technical and financial monitoring of all its development cooperation actions. Like in any sector of cooperation, each project funded by the EU in Indonesia in the area of sustainable forest management and forest conservation is subject to:
• Results oriented monitoring, conducted by independent consultants. Measuring progress against contractually agreed project objectives is the main purpose of these monitoring missions. Each project is subject to this monitoring exercise on a yearly basis, or every two years in case other reviews are organized the same year.
• Mid-term reviews and final evaluations for projects implemented in the context of financing agreements concluded with the Government of Indonesia. These reviews are also conducted by independent consultants and provide in-depth analysis of project achievements and challenges, which are then closely followed up by implementing agencies and the EU Delegation.
• Financial audits conducted for each project, normally on a yearly basis, with the exception of small scale projects which are only subject to financial audits on a less regular basis. These audits are conducted by internationally recognized firms, in accordance with EU regulations.
• Close follow up from EU Delegation staff (including monitoring missions, analysis and feedback on implementation reports).
3. The above-mentioned safeguards provide a robust technical and financial monitoring of all projects. The mixture of independent monitoring and EU Delegation staff follow-up on a regular basis provide opportunities for timely reactions in case any problem is identified.
4. The independent evaluation of the ECIFP (EUR 81 million disbursed between 1995 and 2008) concluded that most actions funded under this programme, namely protected area conservation, forest fire control, illegal logging control, spatial planning for regional natural resource management and local community involvement, were highly relevant to Indonesia's needs. While some of the projects supported under ECIFP have not been able to achieve all their objectives, considered too ambitious by the external evaluation, most projects have satisfactorily achieved their individual objectives.
These included in particular the establishment of an integrated provincial level forest fire management system (South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project), improved awareness and response to the problem of illegal logging (Illegal Logging Response Centre), conservation and design of a long term management plan for a two million ha forest area (Leuser ecosystem development project).
The Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Support Project (project on-going for which a budget of EUR 14.9 million has been committed over 2005-2011) has so far completed the following activities and contributed to the accomplishment of the following results:
• On the law enforcement side, a new draft law on illegal logging has been finalised, investigations have been conducted by forest police with project support and led to prosecution cases and a coordination desk established at the coordinating ministry for political and security affairs.
• On governance: eight information centres were established and integrated to the local government structures, two working groups on timber industry restructuring were established in Jambi and West Kalimantan, and training conducted on improved conflict resolution skills at provincial level.
• Silviculture: a new regulation on community forestry was developed and support provided to pilot areas in Jambi province.
• Timber trade: a new regulation on timber legality verification was adopted and implementation is being prepared. The project has been instrumental in proving technical expertise, organizing consultation seminars in key provinces and organizing capacity building activities on the implementation of this new law;
• FLEGT Coordination: Awareness on illegal logging and response significantly improved at the central level and in pilot provinces through the production of educational movies, participation in exhibition and seminars, organization of radio/TV talk shows, production of brochures etc.
Additional information on results achieved can be found on the project website , including planning documents, reports and information on project budget expenditures which are made available to the public in a transparent way. In line with EU standard procedures, this project is subject to independent monitoring on a yearly basis and recommendations are taken into account in the planning cycle.
There are currently four on-going projects funded under the Environment and Natural Resources Thematic Programme (ENRTP) with a budget of EUR 5.2 million (over 2005-2014).
In addition, a recent independent assessment conducted by Chatham House on the impact of the global effort against illegal logging between 2001 and 2006 (in relation to the EU FLEGT initiatives) concludes that:
"If illegal logging had continued at the rate and scale seen in 2000, then during the five years 2001-2006 around 160 million cubic metres more timber would have been illegally cut in Indonesia than was actually harvested – representing around 7.8 million hectares of forest saved from being seriously degraded or destroyed, slightly more forest than is estimated by the FAO as lost each year worldwide.
… Around $ 4 billion in government revenues have been collected in Indonesia that would not have been if the rate of illegal logging had continued at previous levels."
These findings support the EU in its assessment that its contribution to the global fight against illegal logging through the FLEGT Action Plan is paying off.
Lloyds Bank.
Q - Coupons and dividends. Will the Commission outline which coupons and dividends are the subject of payment suspension under the terms of the state aid commitment made to it by Lloyds Banking Group, and how and why they were selected?
Q - State aid commitment and Lloyds Bank. Will the Commission outline which terms of the state aid commitment made to it by Lloyds Banking Group necessitate the suspension of discretionary payments of coupons or dividends on certain hybrid capital securities and preference shares for a period of two years?
Q - Suspension of discretionary payments of coupons or dividends Lloyd Banking Group. Will the Commission outline whether it was its intention that the state aid commitment made to it by Lloyds Banking Group would necessitate the suspension of discretionary payments of coupons or dividends on certain hybrid capital securities and preference shares for a period of two years, and why it believes this suspension of income for the holders of such securities and shares is necessary and for what purpose?
Will the Commission set out comparable examples for other banks and financial institutions of terms of the state aid commitment made to it which require the suspension of payments of coupons or dividends?
A - We are waiting for a reply to the questions above.
EU funding Turkey membership.
Q - In 2009 Turkey was eligible for €566 million in pre-accession assistance from the EU. Can the Commission inform what further funding is planned?
A - Within the current financial perspective, under the Multi-Annual Indicative Financing Framework for the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA), current indicative allocations for Turkey are EUR 653.7 million for 2010 and EUR 781.9 million for 2011 and EUR 899.5 million for 2012.
Advertising in Ireland.
Q - How much money did the EU spend on advertising in Ireland in the following periods: 01.07.09 to 31.07.09 - 01.08.09 to 31.08.09 - 01.09.09 to 30.09.09 and how much money did the EU spend in the same period the year before?
A - It is the Commission's role to contribute to an informed debate about the European Union, by providing factual, accurate and clear information to citizens. This includes information about the new Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1st December 2009.
The existence of a significant information deficit about the EU in Ireland has been evidenced by research findings and by the conclusions of the Oireachtas (the Irish Parliament) sub-committee's report of November 2008 on Ireland's future in the European Union.
In response to a demand for factual information about the EU, in January 2009, the European Parliament and the European Commission signed a three year Memorandum of Understanding on Communicating Europe in Partnership with the Irish Government. In the framework of this memorandum, the signing parties acquired a one-year contract worth €1.5 million to develop and implement a number of information and communication initiatives in Ireland in relation to the European Union, its policies and institutions.
Trade and the External Action Service
Q - Can the Commission confirm that all matters relating to Trade will be kept entirely separate from the activities of the External Action Service?
A - The Commission will continue to be assisted by its Directorate-General for Trade to fulfil its responsibilities regarding all aspects of the EU Common Commercial Policy, as provided for in the Treaties. In addition, the EU Delegations shall comprise Commission staff where this is appropriate for the implementation of Union policies such as the Common Commercial policy.
As the Union must ensure consistency between the different areas of its external action (as well as between these and its other policies), the European External Action Service (EEAS) shall work in cooperation with the services of the Commission. They shall consult each other on all matters relating to the external action of the Union in the exercise of their respective functions except when the issue exclusively concerns Common Security and Defence Policy.
Baroness Ashton.
Q - To what extent did (Baroness) Catherine Ashton disclose to the Commission her background as one of four paid employees of CND (the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) and then CND's Treasurer?
1 - Prior to Ashton's appointment as Trade Commissioner. 2 - Prior to Ashton's appointment as High Representative?
Note: You will be aware that there is currently no mention of Ashton's time with CND on the Commission's website.
A - The designation of Baroness Ashton as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy followed the procedure set out in Article 18 of the TUE (Treaty on the European Union), which requires a qualified majority of the European Council, with the agreement of the President of the Commission. In reality Baroness Ashton secured the consensual support of the members of the European Council.
Her nomination by the European Council on 1 December 2009 shows that she is fully qualified to assume the responsibilities of High Representative and Vice-President.
Q - The answer the Commission has given relates only to Baroness Ashton's qualifications. My written question addressed ONLY the matter of Baroness Ashton's disclosure of her background in CND (the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament). Again, to what extent did Catherine Ashton disclose to the Commission her background as one of four paid employees of CND (the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), CND's Treasurer and then CND's Vice-Chair, prior to Ashton's appointment as Trade Commissioner and prior to Ashton's appointment as High Representative?
Note: You will be aware that there is still no mention of Ashton's time with CND on the Commission's website.
A - The Code of conduct for Commissioners foresees that Commissioners must fulfil a declaration of interests which might create a conflict of interests in the performance of their duties, covering also outside activities in foundations or similar bodies over the last 10 years .
Baroness Ashton's participation in 'The campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) dates from a long time before this and therefore does not require to be included in the declaration of interests of the Vice President/ High representative, nor on the Commission's website.
It should be noted that Baroness Ashton's work for CND is in the public domain in recognised publications such as "Who's Who".
Sri Lanka and the generalised system of preferences.
Q - Has the Commission made an evaluation of the consequences to the Sri Lankan economy of the withdrawal of GSP+?
A - The Commission has not made a specific evaluation of this question.
The Commission is well aware that the Council Implementing Regulation temporarily withdrawing Generalised system of preferences (GSP+) benefits from Sri Lanka will enter into force on 15 August 2010 (i.e. six months after it was adopted) unless the Council before then, on a proposal from the Commission, decides otherwise. This delay in application of the decision is specifically intended to allow Sri Lanka the opportunity to take action to address the problems with effective implementation of United Nations human rights conventions forming part of the qualifying criteria for GSP+ and identified during the earlier Commission investigation. If this is the case, then the Commission will propose to the Council that it re-establish GSP+ benefits for the country.
Towards this end, the Commission remains in regular dialogue with the Government of Sri Lanka and will closely monitor relevant developments.
If the temporary withdrawal of GSP+ benefits does take effect in August 2010, imports from Sri Lanka will be subject to the standard GSP regime and, therefore, enjoy the same preferential access to the EU market as those from other developing countries that do not satisfy the qualifying criteria for GSP+. Even in this case, applied tariffs on key export items for Sri Lanka such as clothing will still be lower in the EU than in other major developed countries.
EU Bonds.
Q - Can the Commission explain the following:
What EU bonds are issued? What are planned to be issued? What is the liability of the Member States? And what is the liability of the UK?
A - Through bond issues the EU finances loans to Member States which have not yet adopted the euro in the form of balance of payments support.
Through bond issues the EU may also finance loans to non-EU Member States in the form of macro-financial assistance. This facility has been only marginally used in recent years but in future may become increasingly important, depending on Council Decisions in favour of potential beneficiary countries.
Five bonds, for a total amount of EUR 9.2 billion, have been issued since December 2008, to finance balance of payments support to Hungary, Latvia and Romania.
A EUR 1.5 billion bond issue has been launched and disbursed in March 2010 to finance the second instalment of the loan to Romania and the third instalment of the loan to Latvia.
Thereafter, under the current loan commitments decided by the Council in favour of Hungary, Latvia and Romania a further EUR 3.9 billion remain undisbursed.
As all bond issues of the EU finance loans are made "back-to-back", the capital and interest payments by the borrower to the EU match exactly the EU's obligations to pay capital and interest on its bonds.
Only in the case where a beneficiary country defaults, would the payments under the corresponding bond have to be made either from the budget of the European Union which is funded by the Member States or from dedicated funding called by the Commission from Member States specifically to ensure compliance with the EU's legal obligations in cases of default. So far no such default has ever occurred.
Normally none. However, if a beneficiary country defaulted and other measures to ensure compliance with the EU's legal obligations were not possible, the United Kingdom would be asked to contribute, normally temporarily, to the dedicated funding mentioned above, in principle in proportion to its contribution to the estimated budget revenue of the Commission.
Trade Agreement Ecuador.
Q - Are there any plans or proposals or is it under consideration to revise, modify or otherwise alter the existing Trade Agreements between Ecuador and the EU?
A - EU relations with Ecuador are currently regulated by the Framework Agreement on Cooperation of 1993 and the GSP+ scheme which has been autonomously granted by the EU to Ecuador as part of our development policy agenda. The framework of our bilateral relations was also updated in 2003 with the adoption of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement which is still pending ratification in Greece and Colombia and has therefore not yet entered into force.
The Commission started negotiating with the Andean Community for a region-to-region association agreement, including political dialogue, cooperation and trade, in June 2007. However, these negotiations were suspended in June 2008 after disagreement between Andean countries on approaches to a number of key trade issues became insurmountable. New negotiations for a Trade Agreement were launched in January 2009 between the EU and Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. In July 2009 Ecuador suspended its participation in the talks and negotiations therefore continued only with Peru and Colombia.
Negotiations for the Trade Agreement with Colombia and Peru have been recently finalised at technical level. That agreement is also open to the accession of other countries members of the CAN, including Ecuador. Recently, the latter has formally requested to re-join the negotiations of the trade agreement and the Commission has welcomed this news. The Ecuadorian administration and the Commission are planning to organise soon a technical meeting to assess prospects for re-starting the negotiations and agree on a way forward.
Trade agreement Belarus.
Q - Are there any plans, proposals or is it under consideration to revise, modify or otherwise alter the existing trade agreements between Belarus and the EU?
A - Belarus is not a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Negotiations are ongoing but Belarus still needs to make significant progress to be able to join this organisation. WTO accession is a prerequisite for further development of trade relations. Once this basic criterion fulfilled it could be possible to examine to what extent is Belarus able to negotiate and undertake further bilateral trade commitments. The process of the ratification of the EU-Belarus Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) has been frozen since 1997 due to a deterioration of the human rights situation in Belarus. As a result, the EU and Belarus continue to apply the 1989 EU-USSR Trade and Cooperation Agreement which lays down very basic principles of trade.
The bilateral agreement on trade in textile and clothing products expired at the end of 2009. Belarus did not want to renew it, indicating that the customs union created with Russia and Kazakhstan prevented them from continuing this agreement. Consequently, as from 1 January 2010, the EU is applying autonomous quantitative restrictions on imports from Belarus in trade in textile and clothing products. The scope and level of the quantitative restrictions are identical to the levels applied in 2009 under the bilateral agreement.
Belarus was withdrawn from the list of beneficiaries of the EU Generalised System of Preferences following an investigation which demonstrated that Belarus failed to respect core ILO obligations relating to freedom of association of workers. The trade preferences can be re-established at any time provided that Belarus fully respects those basic rights included in two ILO Conventions No. 87 and 98.
Trade Agreement Egypt.
Q - Are there any plans or proposals or is it under consideration to revise, modify or otherwise alter the existing Trade Agreements between Egypt and the EU?
A - Currently the Association Agreement with Egypt which entered into force on 1 June 2004 forms the legal basis governing relations between Egypt and the EU. The core of the Association Agreement establishes a Free Trade Area between the EU and Egypt, which implies reciprocal tariff liberalisation for industrial and agricultural goods. As with other Mediterranean countries, the Association Agreement with Egypt covers mainly trade in goods. It is being completed with a number of on-going negotiations in areas of interest to the EU and Egypt.
In 2005 the Council has authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations with Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries, in order to achieve greater liberalisation of reciprocal trade in agricultural, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products in accordance with the Euro-Mediterranean Roadmap for Agriculture (Rabat roadmap). Egypt and the EU signed an agreement in October 2009 which will soon enter into force. In addition, negotiations to complement the Association Agreement continue with Egypt in a number of other areas, in particular on the liberalisation of trade in services and establishment and on a more efficient dispute settlement mechanism for the trade provisions of the Association Agreement.
Finally, as a part of the work under the Euromed Trade Roadmap beyond 2010, the Commission will also launch work on the deepening of the Association Agreements to turn them into deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreements as soon as progress has been made in on-going negotiations and each Southern Mediterranean partner is ready. The objective is to remove not only tariff but also non tariff barriers.
Trade agreement El Salvador.
Q - Are there any plans or proposals, or is it under consideration, to revise, modify or otherwise alter the existing trade agreements between El Salvador and the EU?
A - The EU concluded on 18 May 2010 an Association Agreement with Central America: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.
EU funding to Montenegro.
Q - Can the Commission advise how much funding has been provided to Montenegro and what further funding is planned?
A - With reference to the question by the Honourable Member regarding EU funding for Montenegro, EU assistance to Montenegro has totalled EUR 86.5 million under CARDS between 2002-2006.
In the period 2007-2009, IPA has provided EUR 97.3 million for institution-building and transition assistance, component I, as well as for cross-border cooperation, component II.
The current Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework 2010-2013 allocates another EUR 137,875,200 to Montenegro.
The key priorities include the strengthening of rule of law, in particular the judiciary and the police, the reform of the public administration, socio-economic development as well as progressive alignment with European Standards.
Montenegro is also entitled to benefit from regional and horizontal programmes under IPA, which amount to a total of EUR 723 million for 2007-2011 for the Western Balkans and Turkey.
Trade agreement China.
Q - Are there any plans, proposals or is it under consideration to revise, modify or otherwise alter the existing trade agreements between China and the EU?
A - The Commission is currently negotiating a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with China. The negotiating mandate to launch negotiations on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with China, including aspects of trade and investment, was approved by the Council in December 2005. The trade and investment part of these negotiations comprise an upgrade of the 1985 EU China Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement. Three rounds of negotiations have taken place in 2009, and the 6th round of trade talks took place in March 2010 in Beijing. The EU is keen to conclude these negotiations.
Proposals on vitamins and minerals in food supplements.
Q - Can the Commission ensure that its officials will not bring forward proposals that will deny millions of consumers across Europe continued access to safe, popular and healthy higher potency vitamin and mineral supplements of their choice?
Can the Commission ensure that the maximum permitted dose levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements, which are about to be proposed, are not set at unnecessarily low levels?
A - We are waiting for a reply to the question above.
Food supplements - maximum permitted levels.
Q - When coming forward with proposals to implement Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive (2002/46/EC) , concerning maximum permitted levels for nutrients in food supplements, can the Commission reassure local companies in my constituency that the proposed levels will be based on the following criteria:
• They will ensure that food supplements are safe.
• They will ensure that food supplements are useful and of an adequate quality.
• They will be based on scientific advice, taking into account the amount of vitamins and minerals which may be consumed from other sources.
• That the Commission will take full account of the results of the different impact assessments which have been conducted regarding the impact on health food manufacturers and retailers.
A - We are waiting for a reply to the question above.