WRITTEN QUESTION P-0438/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The effects of a British fur farming ban on the internal market.
24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/193 the possibility of the Presidency in European parliamentary hearings, committees and delegations; parliamentary delegations or missions to a Member State declining to meet political representatives of its government; the closure of Parliamentís offices in a Member State; the possibility of downgrading or halting contacts in any other areas of activity undertaken by Parliament? Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (24 March 2000) The Honourable Member will recall that the Portuguese Presidency agreed with the Heads of State and Government of 14 Member States and informed the Austrian Chancellor on 31 January 2000 that a certain number of political measures would be taken in respect of an Austrian government integrating members of the FPÖ. The Honourable Member will also recall that on 1 February 2000 the Commission issued a statement according to which it will continue to fulfil its duty as guardian of the provisions and values set down in the Treaties, which provide that the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, as set out notably in Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission also pointed out the European institutions is not affected at this stage and thus maintains its working relations with the Austrian authorities while following the situation carefully. the working of that In that context, the Commission considers, whilst noting that the Parliament is associated with the procedure laid down by Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, that it is the reponsibility of the Parliament itself to fix its own political line of conduct. It should be recalled in that context that the proper functioning of institutional procedures shall be preserved. (2000/C 303 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0438/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 February 2000) Subject: The effects of a British fur farming ban on the internal market The United Kingdom is planning to outlaw fur farming in England and Wales. According to the proposal, the keeping of animals solely for their fur would be banned from 2003 onwards. The House of Commons introduced a Fur Farming Prohibition Bill on 25 February 1999. The bill passed its second reading on 5 March 1999. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 22 November 1999. Now the proposal for new legislation is being considered by the Commission. According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, Elliot Morley, the Government believes it is wrong for animals to be slaughtered for their fur. He states that it is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life. The reasoning behind the abolition of the British fur industry is based on ámoral groundsí as áthere is no moral justification for fur farming in UKí, as Elliot Morley says. According to this view it is not normally questionable to kill a cow for its leather but the killing of a mink for its pelt is condemned on moral grounds. Has the Commission considered the impact of this planned fur ban ü not only on the British fur farming industry ü but also on the internal market of the European Union? Would the ban be compatible with the trade rules or might the ban, in the Commissionís view, hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade? What measures will the Commission take if this ban is realised? Has the Commission considered the fact that banning fur farming in Europe would just result in the industry moving outside Europe and outside the control of the authorities of the European Union and its Member States? C 303 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (9 March 2000) The Commission is aware of the United Kingdomís proposed legislation banning the rearing of animals destined to be killed for their fur. The draft legislation has been communicated to the Commission under the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (1). Under the provisions of this Directive a standstill period of three months is applicable from the date of communication of the text of the proposed legislation by the Member State concerned. This period expires on 13 March 2000. The Commission is currently examining the measures communicated by the United Kingdom in the light of the applicable provisions of the Community law including those mentioned by the Honourable Member. If following the completion of this examination the Commission were to conclude that proposed United Kingdom legislation appeared to be incompatible with Community law it would inform that Member State of its observations on the matter in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of its position on this issue as soon as it has taken a definitive decision under the above-mentioned Directive. (1) OJ L 204, 21. 7. 1998. (2000/C 303 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0441/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 February 2000) Subject: Draft version of a new Community framework for state aids for environmental protection The Commission departments are currently finalising in consultation with the Member States an important document concerning a Community framework for state aids for environmental protection. This is due to enter into force in July 2000. These guidelines are essential for the management of state aids in the environmental field, e. g. in respect of the support provided by the Member States for renewable energies. 1. What are the main criteria by which the Commission assesses state aids for environmental protection? 2. More specifically, what approach underlies the guidelines by which renewable energies are aided? 3. What steps will it be taking to consult with the European Parliament and environmental organisa- tions before reaching a decision on this important issue? How will the transparency and cooperation with Parliament pledged by Commission President Prodi 4. be ensured before the guidelines are adopted? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (15 March 2000) 1. In accordance with Article 6 (formerly Article 3c) of the EC Treaty, the Commission has the task of ensuring that environmental protection requirements are integrated into the definition and implementation of Community policies and activities. In order to ensure better long-term protection for the environment, it take the view that Community policy in this connection must be based on the ápolluter-paysí principle, this being the best way to encourage society at large to protect the environment. Generally speaking, the granting of state aid can thwart this principle by allowing firms to avoid the environmental costs linked to their activities. The Commission considers therefore that the granting of aid can be counter-productive for