WRITTEN QUESTION P-1917/99 by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Council. Custody and repatriation detention practices in China.
C 170 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 Currently, implementation of development aid programmes in Mozambique has been progressing accord- ing to plan. During the first semester of 1999, the Commission approved two new programmes amounting to € 25,8 million. There has been no particular problem with the Mozambican authorities during the period mentioned by the Honourable Member. On the contrary, relations have improved, allowing for the Mozambican authorities to be very much involved in the definition, planning and implementation of the aid programmes. The Honourable Member might wish to note, as well, that funding from the Community to Mozambique is presently at a high level. Indeed, disbursements in 1998 reached € 91 million, whereas forecasts for 1999 and 2000 are presently set at € 132 million and € 127 million. (2000/C 170 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1917/99 by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Council (15 October 1999) Subject: Custody and repatriation detention practices in China Each year in China hundreds of thousands of people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds including street children, the homeless, those suffering from mental illness and migrants, are arbitrarily arrested and held without specific charge or trial. This repressive practice, known as custody and repatriation, became even more widespread in the weeks leading up to the 50th anniversary of the Peopleís Republic of China. People may be held for several months in appalling conditions. Prisoners are subject to constant physical violence, live in disgraceful sanitary conditions, work extremely long hours and are held in almost complete isolation. In addition, they must pay the costs of their detention in the custody and repatriation centres. What measures has the Council taken or does it intend to take to ensure that the Chinese authorities put an immediate end to this form of administrative arrest which is contrary to the spirit and the letter of international conventions ratified by the Peopleís Republic of China? What action does the Council intend to take to ensure that, pending total abolition of this form of arbitrary imprisonment, the Chinese authorities guarantee freedom of access for international organisations to the custody and repatriation centres? More generally, what measures will the Council take to ensure rigorous and verifiable compliance by China with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Reply (17 December 1999) 1. The EU has expressed its concern about Human Rights violations in China on several occasions, in multilateral fora as well as in bilateral contacts with the Chinese authorities, and in particular in the framework of the EU-China Human Rights dialogue. Through this dialogue, the EU regularly raises among other issues the questions of administrative detention and arbitrary arrests. The EU strongly urged the the Chinese authorities to change their policy in this area and to comply with the provisions of UN Covenants on political and civil rights and social, economic and cultural rights it has signed over the last two years. It also underlined the importance of giving follow-up to the recommendations made by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention following its visit to China. The EU further encouraged China to pursue cooperation with the ICRC regarding access to detention centres. Finally, the EU proposed to China that technical assistance projects be developed to help the Chinese government to ratify and implement the UN Covenants mentioned above. 2. The last round of the EU-China Human Rights dialogue was held on 19 October in Beijing. On this occasion, the Chinese authorities briefed the EU on envisaged reforms in administrative detention. They 20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/125 also reported good cooperation with the ICRC concerning access to detention centres and their willingness to continue such cooperation. Finally, they expressed readiness to receive legal assistance and expertise from the EU with a view to the ratification and implementation of the UN Covenants. (2000/C 170 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1923/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (4 November 1999) Subject: Responding to parliamentary questions How long, on average, has it taken the Commission to respond to non-priority written questions 1. tabled by MEPS over the last year? 2. How comparable is this to similar procedures within the parliaments of the Member States? 3. What proposals does the Commission intend to put forward with a view to reducing the time taken to answer such questions? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (4 November 1999) The Commission gave 3 013 answers to non-priority questions forwarded by the Parliament in 1998, 1. taking on average six weeks and four days for each of these answers. 2. The Commission does not possess information about questions asked in Member Statesí parliaments. It may, however, be observed that the situations of the Commission and national administrations are not really similar, given in particular the need for coordination between Commission services, the adoption procedure ensuring collegiate responsibility, and the requirement to answer in the language of the author of the question. In the context of the nomination of the new Commission, the Vice-President responsible for relations 3. with the Parliament indicated her clear intention to speed up answers to parliamentary questions. Since then changes have been made to the Commissionís internal procedures which should result in a real reduction in the average reply time. The Commission agrees however that it should be possible to answer all written questions within the six week period identified in Parliamentís procedures, and it will continue to tighten up its procedures to achieve this. (2000/C 170 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1925/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission (4 November 1999) Subject: Inclusion of specific data in the state aid proceedings relating to the Spanish electricity sector In its answer to the Socialist MP Juan Manuel Eguiagaray on 17 September 1999, in the Chamber of Deputies, the Spanish government stated that, in its opinion, the sixth transitional provision of Electricity Sector Law on costs of transition to competition (CTCs) for Spanish electrical companies does not, with respect to the wording of Regulation 50/1998, ácontain any element of state aid within the meaning of Article 92 (1) of the EC Treaty. í