WRITTEN QUESTION E-3127/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council. US funding of European federalism.
Date: 2000-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Movement, United States, financing

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/39

response to this incident, apart from requesting information from the Bulgarian side, which was provided.
However, the Commission took note of statements made on that occasion by the head of the Bulgarian
regulatory authority, as reported in the press, according to which the Bulgarian authorities have noted an
upward trend in the number of safety related incidents in the plant. The Bulgarian authorities will continue
to monitor the situation, taking into account that achieving a high level of nuclear safety in the candidate
countries is an important issue in the context of enlargement and a priority of the accession partnership
with Bulgaria.

In December 1995, the Ukrainian Government and the group of seven most industrialized (G7) and the
Commission signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) committing themselves to the completion of
K2R4. This memorandum of understanding includes several commitments on both sides,
the most
important being the Ukrainian commitment to shut down the Chernobyl plant by the year 2000. This
will be honoured by the Ukrainian government, which has decided to shut down the plant by 15 December
2000.

The MOU also contains a point related to an energy investment programme, which includes the
preparation of loan-financed projects based upon least-cost planning principles for completion of K2R4
reactors, and also for thermal and hydro plant rehabilitation and pumped storage projects as well as for
energy efficiency projects in accordance with Ukraine(cid:146)s energy sector strategy.

In line with these commitments, the Commission is supporting the Ukrainian nuclear safety authorities,
the Ukrainian nuclear utility and Ukrainian engineering organisations in preparing for possible loans from
the EBRD and from Euratom to complete and upgrade the K2R4 nuclear units to an internationally
acceptable safety level.

Without pre-empting the outcome of these ongoing actions, which will allow the different parties to take a
decision on the proposed loans, they will be subject to conditions such as the need for an acceptable level
of nuclear safety as well to satisfactory progress in the reform of the energy sector.

(2001/C 163 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3127/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: US funding of European federalism

There have been newspaper articles stating that leading figures in the cause of European integration were
funded in their activities through the American Committee for a United Europe, a front for United States
intelligence services.

Such confirm the reports that during the 1975 EEC Referendum in the United Kingdom, disaffected CIA
operatives alerted the leadership of the (cid:145)No(cid:146) campaign that their colleagues were actively involved in the
other camp.

Given that the European Parliament has voiced its concern over Echelon, what is the Council(cid:146)s opinion on
this?

Does the Council have on file pertinent documents relating to this matter? What is their classification?

Has this matter ever been raised in working committee? When?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

The Council has not been informed of the allegations to which the Honourable Member refers. There

1.
are therefore no plans for a working party to look into the questions.

C 163 E/40

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

The Council position on Echelon was clearly set out in the JHA Council conclusions of 29 May
2.
2000, following an exchange of views on debates in the European Parliament on telecommunications
interception outside any legal
for the
fundamental principles relating to the protection of human rights and personal freedoms, both for natural
and legal persons, as recognised by the Treaty.

framework. The Council reaffirmed its attachment to respect

(2001/C 163 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3135/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: EC-Greenland fisheries agreement

On 14 September 2000, the Commission completed negotiations on a new fisheries agreement with
Greenland, providing for an annual EU contribution of € 42,82 million for 2000-2006. The Council has
not yet adopted this agreement, which does not separate the two types of funding, one for fishing rights
and the other for development aid, despite the Commission(cid:146)s undertaking that this agreement would
distinguish between these two areas according to the Commission(cid:146)s own unilateral declaration, € 28
million being assigned, to fishing rights, and the rest to development aid.

One of the controversial aspects of the present agreement with Greenland is that there is no real uptake of
the quotas assigned to the EU, and certain fleets from countries interested in using these quotas are
prevented from doing so because of the current distribution patters, which favours specific countries which
in practice do not use their quotas.
It would appear to be legitimate to reallocate these fishing
opportunities, acquired and paid for with Community money, to fleets which are interested in them, but
are presently blocked from using these fishing grounds.

Another issue in dispute is the complete failure to carry out exploration to investigate the existence of new
stocks and identify new fishing opportunities, alongside the non-contribution of the shipowners concerned
to the cost of the agreement, unlike most agreements signed by the Community.

How does the Council evaluate the implementation and development of the third protocol which expires
on 31 December, and the use which has been made of it?

Does the Council intend to amend the new text so as to ensure respect for the principle of co-funding, in
the shape of a levy paid by the Community shipowners benefiting from the Agreement? If not, how does
the Council justify such discrimination?

Does the text of the new agreement envisage greater emphasis on exploratory fishing?

With a view to making maximum use of the fishing opportunities, is the Council going to introduce
a mechanism for redistributing unused fishing opportunities?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

The Commission on 13 September 2000 initialled the draft Fourth Fisheries Protocol with Greenland, after
the successful conclusion of negotiations with the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule
Government of Greenland. In line with the negotiating mandate adopted by the Council on 4 August
2000, the Commission conducted these negotiations on behalf of the European Community, assisted by
a special committee in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty. The Council would also inform the
Honourable Member that at its meeting on 14/15 December 2000 it decided to apply this Protocol
provisionally pending the Commission proposal on the conclusion of the Agreement.