WRITTEN QUESTION E-1600/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Public disclosure of decision-making on interest rates ‐ applying the British model to the European Central Bank.
Date: 2000-05-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Central Bank, interest, transparency in decision-making

C 89 E/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

will the Commission say whether the building of a thermal power plant at Pian dei Gangani (Montalto di
Castro) proposed by Elettro Ambiente spa, a member of the Enel group, a project overwhelmingly rejected
by the Latium region, would be in breach of EEC rules on the subject?

The plant would be fuelled by biomass and CDR with a power of 14 MW, a fuel derived from waste which
could produce dangerous emissions.

What will the Commission do to protect public health and the environment and safeguard business and
tourist activities in the area, while ensuring that the region of Montalto di Castro is not further exposed to
harmful emissions, in line with the appeals made on various occasions by the Province of Viterbo to
different Community bodies?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The aspect concerning the prevention of air pollution from a plant which is still at the project stage is to
be considered in the framework of the Community environmental
impact assessment (EIA) legislation
Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (1) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2).
In particular, Article 1 of Directive 97/11/EC
provides that Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given,
projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location are
made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Air
pollution is among the impacts to be assessed.

The project to which the Honourable Member makes reference appears to be one of the classes listed
under Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC. Article 4, paragraph 2, of this directive states that subject to
Article 2(3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through a case-by-case
examination, or thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to
an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

However, as reported by the Honourable Member, the regional authorities have rejected the project.
Therefore, the Commission considers that, at present, there are no grounds for intervention in this specific
case. Should the project be approved in the future without taking appropriate account of the Community
EIA directives, a breach of Community law will occur and, according to the EC Treaty, the Commission
will be entitled to intervene.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 89 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1600/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Public disclosure of decision-making on interest rates (cid:129) applying the British model to the

European Central Bank

1.
Has the Commission taken note of the current strong position of the Pound sterling relative to the
euro, having regard to the latter(cid:146)s recent steep fall in value (from 71 pence on its launch date to 59 pence)?

2.
Public interest in changes in interest rates and in how such changes are determined has played an
important part in the recent jockeying for a dominant position as an international trading currency
between the euro, the pound sterling and the US dollar. In the US Federal Reserve the decision is taken by
one person, whereas in the European Central Bank the decision is a collective one, arrived at in deepest

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/59

secrecy on a basis of consensus but without the requirement of unanimity. By contrast, the members of
the Bank of England(cid:146)s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) decide changes in the interest rate by majority
voting, and their voting record is also made public. According to some economists, that transparency is
one of the factors helping to keep the Pound sterling at its present high level.

Does the Commission share the view of Professor Willem Buiter, an MPC member of three years(cid:146) standing
now preparing to move on to an appointment with the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, who stated in an interview on 29 April 2000 with the Netherlands daily De Volkskrant
that the present British system was superior to that of Europe or the United States?

For what reasons has the European Central Bank(cid:146)s decision-making process hitherto been less open

3.
to public scrutiny than the Bank of England(cid:146)s?

4. What action will be necessary to ensure that European Central Bank transparency on setting interest
rates can be made as complete as that now observed by the Bank of England?

5. Would the Commission be prepared to advocate that the European Central Bank adopt the Bank of
England(cid:146)s method of setting interest rates?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

1. Member States are required by the EC Treaty to treat their exchange rate as a matter of common
concern. While the Commission has no direct responsibility for the monetary and exchange rate policies of
the Member States, the Commission provides analyses for the regular exchange rate surveillance carried
out by the Economic and Financial Committee, the Ecofin Council and the informal Euro-11 Group.

The Commission has taken note of the movements in the exchange rate of the Pound sterling relative to
the euro. Short-run movements in the exchange rate of the euro against other currencies may occur for a
variety of reasons and do not draw into question the long-term stability of the euro, either in terms of
internal stability (i.e. stable purchasing power of the euro as implied by the maintenance of price stability),
or in terms of a stronger external value of the euro reflecting the favourable economic fundamentals of the
euro area economy.

The experience with floating exchange rate regimes show that exchange rate movements may be relatively
large and volatile, with a tendency for exchange rates to overshoot their longer-run (cid:145)equilibrium(cid:146) levels. The
movements in the sterling-euro exchange rate can mainly be explained by differences in cyclical positions
and other economic factors implying differences in interest rates and expected returns. Analyses show that
the effective (i.e. trade-weighted) exchange rate of sterling is significantly above its longer-term average,
while that of the euro is significantly below its long-term average. These divergences can be expected to
unwind over time, although it is very difficult to predict when this will occur.

2.
International experience indicates that a number of institutional set-ups and varying monetary policy
strategies may be compatible with successful monetary policy. Most observers would concur that the
monetary policies of, e.g. the United States Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and formerly the
Bundesbank have, in general terms, been successful at achieving the objectives set for them. There should
be no presumption that one system is universally (cid:145)superior(cid:146) to all others and could be transposed to other
conditions than those for which it was designed. The institutional framework for Economic and monetary
union (EMU) is treaty-based and it is tailored to the needs of a union of independent Member States which
have agreed to share the same currency. Therefore, it does not seem completely appropriate to compare
the European Central Bank (ECB) system to the British system.

C 89 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Moreover, the criticisms attracted by the ECB appear largely unjustified. The ECB, which is a new
institution responsible for the monetary policy of a new economic entity, has showed the ability to react
flexibly and appropriately to economic developments. The ECB has used a variety of communication tools
(cid:129) e.g. the quarterly hearings of its President before the Parliament, the monthly press conferences which
follow the meetings of the governing council, its monthly bulletins and annual reports (cid:129) to explain the
reasons for its monetary policy decisions and the underlying monetary policy strategy.

3.
It is debatable whether the ECB has been less open to public scrutiny than the Bank of England. The
ECB has been open through a wide array of communication tools. These include written documents,
namely the ECB monthly bulletins and the annual report, the press releases and research papers; the
monthly press conferences of the President and Vice-President of the ECB after the meetings of the
governing council; the (at least) quarterly hearings of the ECB President in the Parliament; the numerous
public appearances of executive board members.

4. and 5.
appropriate and well-tuned to changing economic circumstances.

The Commission is of the view that the conduct of monetary policy by the ECB has been

Furthermore, on the basis of the reasons stated above, there should be no automatic presumption that the
rules and procedures followed by the Bank of England could or should be transposed in their entirety to
the Eurosystem. Each issue has to be assessed on its merits in the specific context of EMU.

It should be stressed that, while the Commission takes part in the public discussion on economic policy
and thus also on monetary policy, deciding on the monetary policy strategy and on the most appropriate
communication strategy for the Eurosystem (including the potential publication of minutes and voting
patterns) is, on the basis of the EC Treaty, an exclusive responsibility of the ECB.

(2001/C 89 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1614/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Use of somatostatin in the treatment of osteosarcomas

Six months ago, the National Cancer Institute financed a study at five major US cancer research centres
into the use of somatostatin in the treatment of osteosarcomas, one of the most malignant forms of
tumour. The study was to receive further financing for one year if it proved successful (halting or reducing
tumours without toxic effects). However, an NCI document shows that, as a result of the positive findings,
the study has received further funding in all five centres, confirming the efficacy of the product which is
the basis of the method used by Dr Di Bella. Further confirmation of the effectiveness of this treatment is
provided by the decisions by more than 40 Italian courts requiring local health care units to offer this
treatment on the basis of reports by cancer specialists.

The Commission:

1.

Is it aware of the decision taken by the National Cancer Institute?

2. Does it know of any similar studies conducted in Europe and their findings?

3. Why not include a study of this kind in its four-year research programme?

4.

Is somatostatin included in any of the Member States(cid:146) pharmaceutical tables as a tumoricidal drug and,
if so, in which ones?