WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2409/98 by Joan COLOM I NAVAL to the Commission. Commission presence in Macao
Date: 1998-07-17
Institutions: COLOM I NAVAL, European Parliament
Subjects: EP delegation, European Commission, Japan, Macao, secretariat of an Institution, the EU's international role

8.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 96/87

(1999/C 96/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2397/98

by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Position of midwives

The work of midwives has a long tradition in Finnish maternity care. Nowadays practice has changed. Women are
not in the care of a midwife throughout pregnancy, but often encounter one for the first time when soon to give
birth. Midwives are not allowed to work in maternity advice centres, which restricts their scope to exercise their
profession. The (cid:145)district nursing(cid:146) (Fi. v(cid:228)est(cid:246)vastuu) system has meant that one nurse/health care officer may have
only a few pregnant women per year in her care. This puts at risk the preservation of professional skills, and
entails the danger that problematic or high-risk pregnancies may not be recognised.

The training of midwifery students in the care of pregnant women is not provided by midwives, and consequently
Directive 80/155/EEC (1) is not being applied in Finland. What measures does the Commission propose to take to
ensure that these problems are eliminated and this directive applied in Finland?

(1) OJ L 33, 11.2.1980, p. 8.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The Commission is not aware of the problems mentioned by the Honourable Member. They do not appear,
however, to infringe Council Directive 80/155/EEC of 21 January 1980 concerning the coordination of provisions
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the activities of
midwives.

As regards the fact that midwifery training is not entrusted to a midwife in Finland, Directive 80/155/EEC does
not stipulate which professional has to be responsible for such training. Accordingly, this is a matter exclusively
for the Member State concerned.

As for the other problems mentioned, they too do not appear to be at variance with the Directive in so far as it does
not establish for midwifes a monopoly over the exercise of their activities, which are listed in Article 4.

(1999/C 96/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2409/98

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(17 July 1998)

Subject: Commission presence in Macao

The European Parliament(cid:146)s delegation for relations with the People(cid:146)s National Assembly of China undertakes a
visit to the People(cid:146)s Republic of China approximately every two years. The most recent visit took place this year
at the end of May and during the first week of June.

As on previous occasions the Commission(cid:146)s office in Peking provided assistance in various ways, from logistical
support to information meetings. In particular, the Commission representative attended several of the official
meetings and one of the office(cid:146)s staff accompanied the delegation throughout its visit to Dalyan.

Since it was set up, Parliament(cid:146)s delegation has on two occasions included Macao in its itinerary: in 1991 and also
this year, from the evening of Saturday, 6 June to mid-afternoon on Sunday, 7 June, during which time it held
meetings with the Governor, the Macao Legislative Council and the leaders of various projects to which the EU is
contributing. Throughout the day in Macao, nobody attended from the Commission(cid:146)s office in Hong Kong,
despite the fact that Macao falls within its jurisdiction.

Does the Commission not consider that sending a representative to Macao was something which falls within the
Hong Kong office(cid:146)s area of responsibility? Was it not thought worthwhile to send a representative? Since the
Hong Kong office attended the meeting with consuls in Hong Kong, why did it not send a representative to
Macao?