WRITTEN QUESTION E-0711/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council. Statements by the British Foreign Secretary on Cyprus.
C 72 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6. 3. 2001 Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (7 June 2000) The Commission, like Parliament, attaches great importance to the Court of Auditorsí reports. In fact, their findings have provided an important contribution to the Commissionís current reform programme. The Financial Regulation (1) provides for a period of ten weeks from emission of the draft report by the Court of auditors to the publication of the final annual or special report. During these ten weeks the replies of the audited institution are included and production of the eleven language versions takes place. The last activity takes just under half of the total time. This regulatory period can prove to be tight, especially when Member States or other third parties have to be consulted prior to answering the Court of auditorsí observations. The Commission is therefore currently exploring with the Court of Auditors ways in which procedures could be streamlined. So far, three main avenues have been identified: to clarify factual aspects as far as possible at the stage of the preparatory sector letters and implement harmonised and modernised rules for their transmission, to spread the workload of the annual and special reports as evenly as possible throughout the year, and to make full use of the advantages offered by electronic transmission. The Commission much appreciates the question and the interest of the Honourable Member and looks forward to receiving her valuable input during the forthcoming discussions on this subject in the budget control committee. (1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2673/1999 of 13 December 1999 amending the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the Communities (OJ L 326, 18. 12. 1999). (2001/C 72 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0711/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council (14 March 2000) Subject: Statements by the British Foreign Secretary on Cyprus The British Foreign Secretary, Mr Robin Cook, told the House of Commons a few days ago that freedom of movement between the Republic of Cyprus and the occupied northern sector of the island would be restored only if Turkey acceded to the European Union. This statement by Mr Cook met with the justifiable riposte from the Conservative MP Sir David Madel who recalled that the British Government had so far adopted a different position on this matter. He also asked to be informed whether the peaceful reunification of Cyprus now depended on the entry of Turkey into the European Union and whether the British Government was now saying that the northern part of Cyprus was part of Turkey. Will the Council say whether it shares the position of the British Foreign Secretary on this matter, bearing in mind that this would represent a departure from what had been agreed at Helsinki and from the consistent position of the EU that no third country is entitled to veto the accession of Cyprus? Will it also state clearly whether Mr Cook and the Council take the view that the acceptance of Turkey as a candidate country gives it this right? Will it also say whether it has asked Mr Cook to explain what he meant by this statement and suggested that he might retract it? If so, what was his response? Reply (26 September 2000) The Council is in no position to predict, let alone to determine when freedom of movement within the Republic of Cyprus will be restored. In the Councilís view this issue should be resolved in the context of a settlement negotiated on the basis of Resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council, notably through the proximity talks launched in December 1999 in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1250, which the EU continues to support strongly. As the European Council underlined at facilitate the accession of Cyprus. Helsinki, the EU takes the view that a political settlement will 6. 3. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/7 If, however, no settlement has been reached by the completion of accession negotiations, the Councilís decision on accession will be made without the above being a pre-condition. In this the Council will take account of all relevant factors. In the accession process, each candidate country is judged on its own merits on the basis of the same objective criteria, and the accession of one candidate is not dependent on that of any other. (2001/C 72 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0823/00 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 2000) Subject: European school milk measure the European school milk measure dating from February 1999 A report on an evaluation of (COM(1999) 608) draws the following conclusion: Judged purely against the current, stated documented objectives of the measure that focus principally on maintaining and increasing consumption of milk products and as a surplus disposal tool, the measure has had a marginal positive impact and represents poor value for money in comparison to alternative methods of surplus disposal used. This suggests that the Commission should give serious consideration to withdrawing the measure. í Despite this, on 10 December 1999 the Commission proposed that the measure should be adjusted rather than withdrawn. The proposal reduces the Community contribution from 95 % to 50 % of the cost. The remainder of the cost is to be borne by Member States. The Commission bases its proposal on Community objectives relating to public health. How can the Commission proposal be reconciled with the subsidiarity principle (Article 5 of the EC 1. Treaty) and with the new Commissionís intention of restricting its work to core responsibilities? 2. What scientifically justified public-health objectives does the Commission proposal pursue, and to what extent do/will the existing and proposed measures really help to attain them? 3. What percentage of the school milk budget is spent on administration? What would the correspond- ing figure be under the proposed measure? 4. What financial European Union? impact will the proposed measure have after the proposed enlargement of the Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 May 2000) In its proposal of 10 December 1999 (1), the Commission recommends maintaining Community aid 1. for milk distribution in schools, but at a reduced level and part-financed by the Member States. This aid is granted within the framework of the common organisation of the market in the milk and milk products sector and is justified by its direct and indirect impact on milk product consumption. The aid scheme contributes to implementing the CAP and falls therefore within the responsibilities conferred on the Community as such. The Commission recognises that milk distribution in schools also contributes to health and hygiene, 2. food policy and social objectives, but it equally considers, for these very reasons, that Community aid paid out of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), should be supplemented by a national contribution. The evaluation report cited by the Honourable Member looks into the other objectives referred to above and relates them to the context of the school-milk scheme. 3. The budget allocated to the school-milk scheme is intended in its entirety to provide a discount on the sales price of milk products distributed in schools. Management of the scheme is in the hands of national bodies whose running costs are the responsibility of the national authorities. The Commission proposal does not change this situation