WRITTEN QUESTION E-2637/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Democratisation and the changing of priorities at the World Trade Organisation.
C 303 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 The Commission shares the Honourable Memberís view that failure to wear a belt makes it impossible to derive the full benefits from the additional road safety provided by such retention systems. Recent studies carried out in the Member States have shown that, even with a rate of use of seat belts close to 85 % in the front seats, half of accident victims are among the 15 % who did not fasten their belt. However, the solution proposed by the Honourable Member is likely to be difficult to implement at the moment. It would require a system which is able to detect which seats are occupied, which could not be bypassed, e. g. by fastening the belt without passing it around the body, and which did not in itself pose a serious accident risk, e. g. by causing the engine to switch off automatically if the belt is unfastened while the vehicle is in motion. Manufacturers are studying other ways of increasing seat belt use, notably through the use of particularly irksome visual and audible warning systems, which could be widely introduced within a relatively short period of time. The Commission does, however, believe that, as Directive 91/671/EEC indicates, the Member States already have the legislative instruments necessary to ensure stricter control of the wearing of seat belts throughout their territory. (1) OJ L 220, 29. 8. 1977. (2) OJ L 373, 31. 12. 1991. (2000/C 303 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2637/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 January 2000) Subject: Democratisation and the changing of priorities at the World Trade Organisation A constantly growing movement (1 200 organisations, from an original 85) is opposed to the Seattle talks, and considers that the structure of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is particularly undemocratic, damaging for the environment and runs counter to employment law etc. In the view of this movement, human rights, multilateral agreements on the environment and employment law should not be subordi- nated to áfreeí market trade, but vice versa. the European Unionís embargo on beef containing hormones, The WTOís practice to date and the decisions of the Dispute Settlement Body (the United Statesí appeal against the appeal of Venezuela oil companies against environmental protection bodies, and others) do indeed raise question marks over the bodyís democratic nature. The same is true of the agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPS), on the subject of which this yearís UN report on human development states that after signature of the agreement, traditional production methods are subject to strict international rules, with negative consequences for Third World countries and to the benefit of multinational companies. Does the Commission intend to place the democratisation and the changing of priorities at the World Trade Organisation at the forefront at Seattle? Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (16 February 2000) The Honourable Member raises the issue of the opposition from a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to the World trade organisation (WTO). The Commission is well aware of the concerns expressed by parts of civil society regarding the impact of WTO rules on sensitive issues such as the environment, social standards, or health. This is why the Community has proposed a broad agenda for 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/87 a new round of trade negotiations, encompassing the issues specifically mentioned by the Honourable Member, including a clarification of the relationship between the WTO and multilateral environmental agreements, and joint work by the International labour organisation (ILO) and WTO to take forward the issue of core labour standards. Unfortunately, the WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle did not agree on launching this new round of negotiations so progress in the areas identified above will have to wait. The Commission is committed to pursuing the objective of a comprehensive round, an objective endorsed by the Council and the Parliament. As regards the Honourable Memberís view that the WTO is undemocratic, the Commission would recall that the WTO takes its decisions at the General Council, in which each WTO Member has a vote. Most decisions are taken by consensus and therefore have to carry each Memberís agreement. The representa- tives in the General Council represent the Membersí sovereign governments. The WTO is therefore no more áundemocraticí than the United Nations (UN) or other similar international organisations. Regarding the Honourable Memberís comments on dispute settlement, the Commission would point out that dispute settlement in the WTO is primarily intended to settle differences between WTO members on the basis of their commitments. In principle, therefore, dispute settlement panel conclusions only assist in the implementation of WTO agreements to which the Members have signed up following the above rules. As far as the Agreement on Trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPs) is concerned, it does not allow for the patenting of traditional production methods. It only provides intellectual property protection for inventions that meet the very strict criteria of novelty, industrial application and inventiveness. The Commission does, however, agree with the Honourable Member that the functioning of the WTO needs to be improved. It submitted a series of proposals concerning transparency and public scrutiny of the WTO and other reform issues before the Seattle ministerial conference. The Commission is in favour of holding meetings of parliamentarians from WTO Member States, as a means to facilitate democratic control of WTO activities, as proposed by the Members of the Parliament present in Seattle. The Commission is in the process of preparing a further set of proposals which it intends after consultation of Member States and discussion with the Parliament, to transmit to the WTO in the near future. (2000/C 303 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2638/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: The health sector and the new millennium (12 January 2000) The American representative at the World Trade Organisation, Charlene Barshefsky, referring to the Seattle Ministerial Conference, emphasised that the public sector was responsible for health services in many foreign countries and that US private firms active in the health sector therefore had difficulty in penetrating those markets. Given that views which favour further privatisations and the facilitation of the entry of foreign capital are diametrically opposed to the welfare state approach and structure as found in most European Union countries, what position does the Commission intend to adopt on this proposal? Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (10 February 2000) Health services are already covered by the General agreement on trade in services (GATS) and will therefore be part of the forthcoming negotiations which are foreseen to start this year. The Community has undertaken very limited commitments under this sector