WRITTEN QUESTION E-2638/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The health sector and the new millennium.
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. C 303 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 The Community objective in the forthcoming GATS negotiations is not to provoke privatisation or a general deregulation of the health sector ü or any other sector where the interest of consumers is protected by public policy objectives ü and the Community will not accept anything which could undermine its public policy objectives in those service sectors covered by GATS which are exclusively or partly linked to the state, such as health services. The Commission has no intention to support deregulation of the health sector as a result of liberalisation within the framework of GATS. The negotiations must not undermine the universal availability and high standards of health services in Member States, nor the different regulatory models adopted in Member States. However, on the other hand, we should not rule out negotiating access for European providers to the market-based segment of such sectors in third countries. (2000/C 303 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2647/99 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: Awarding of a contract for a service that is already covered (12 January 2000) The Commission has recently published an invitation to tender (1), for the creation of an interinstitutional terminology base for the Luxembourg Translation Centre, which would be financed by the Industry Directorate-General (ex DG III) for the sum of EUR 1,5 million. The three largest European institutions (the Council, Parliament, and the Commission) already have their own terminology bases (TIS, Euterpe and Eurodiautom) and these are electronically interconnected. At the Commission there is even an interface (one-stop-terminology) developed by the internal terminology department that enables term searches with simultaneous consultation of the three databases mentioned above and others (JIAMCATT, FAO, ITU etc. ), and the use of Internet search engines. It is not clear from the contractís technical specifications if the project is designed to create a terminology base from scratch or simply to create a common interface for access to the databases mentioned above, with the addition of a validation and control function. Can the Commission answer the following: 1. Why does the Commission plan to create a structure that parallels existing ones? How can it reconcile this decision with Regulation (EC) No 2610/95 (2), amending Regulation (EC) No 2965/94 (3), the text of which affirms the need to strengthen administrative collaboration between the institutions and bodies of the Union with a view to making overall savings by avoiding superfluous work and parallel structures? 2. Why does the Commission intend to entrust the implementation and supervision of a project of this kind to the Translation Centre, given that ü as its director has publicly admitted ü it does not have either the experience or the necessary specific knowledge in the fields of terminology and informatics? (1) OJ S 163, 24. 8. 1999. (2) OJ L 268, 10. 11. 1995, p. 1. (3) OJ L 314, 7. 12. 1994, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (24 February 2000) The three largest European institutions already have their own terminology bases (TIS, Euterpe and Eurodicautom), but these are not electronically interconnected. The Commission does indeed have an interface that enables term searches with simultaneous consultation of the three major databases and others (one-stop terminology), but it is internal to the Commission. While a single access mechanism of this type could be made more widely available and comprehensive, it provides only a partial solution to