WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/01 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission. NHS authorities.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, United Kingdom, contract, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, health service, infringement of EU law, provision of services, restriction on competition, supplier

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/221

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The Council is aware of the improvement in systems of education for all but suggests that the Honourable
Member should put his question direct to the Commission, which is competent to deal with the type of
problem raised in it.

(2002/C 147 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3683/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Irradiated food

Does the Commission believe that only the term ‘irradiated’, or a similar term, should be used to describe
food that has undergone irradiation treatment on relevant labels?

At present in the United Kingdom, a number of different terms such as ‘treated by cold pasteurisation’,
‘sterilised with electron beam (E-beam) technology’ and ‘electronically pasteurised’ are all used.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2002)

Labelling of irradiated foods is regulated by Article 6 of Directive 1999/2/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council of 22 February 1999 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods
and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation (1). It provides that the words ‘irradiated’ or ‘treated
with ionising radiation’ shall be used to indicate that the foodstuff or an ingredient of the foodstuff has
been irradiated. This wording is therefore mandatory and aims at ensuring full transparency for the
consumer.

Information about food irradiation is available on the following web site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/
fs/sfp/sfp_index_en.html.

(1) OJ L 66, 13.3.1999,.

(2002/C 147 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: NHS authorities

Can the Commission confirm that the United Kingdom Government is not permitted, as a matter of
European Community law, to forbid NHS authorities to contract for health services from suppliers based
in other Member States in a situation in which such authorities are permitted to contract with private
suppliers of health services who are based in the UK?

Is it permissible for the UK Government to prohibit NHS authorities from contracting with suppliers of
health services in other Member States until UK regulations are adopted setting out the terms under which
such overseas contracting can take place? In particular, is such a restriction acceptable when the NHS
authorities are responsible by law for health care in their locality?

C 147 E/222

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2002)

Any policy of contracting which would have the effect of favouring national suppliers or forbid the
purchasing of services from suppliers from other Member States would not appear to be in conformity
with Community Law.

In the light of the judgements of the Court of Justice in the Geraets-Smits and Peerbooms case (C-157/99)
and in the Vanbraekel case (C-368/98), the British authorities informed the Commission of their intention
to clarify their existing rules on the purchasing of hospital services under the NHS system. They also
indicated that it was their intention to make clear to health authorities and primary care trusts that they
are able to commission services from other European countries.

The press issued reports of British patients being treated in other Member States in order for them to avoid
having to wait for NHS treatment.

The Court of Justice’s rulings in the above cases have given rise to a number of issues and the Commission
is collaborating with Member States to seek ways to resolve them.

(2002/C 147 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3693/01

by Adeline Hazan (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Presence of asbestos in vehicles

As of 1 January 2002 vehicles in France in which certain sub-assemblies such as engines, brakes and
clutche mechanisms comprise elements containing asbestos can no longer be sold or transferred in any
other way, in accordance with Decree 96-1133 of 24 December 1996.

This measure, which means the disappearance of historic military vehicles, is particularly unjust. It also
threatens to cause substantial financial losses to individuals and the disappearance of a whole category of
workers, those involved in the sale and repair of second-hand cars.

Germany has already granted an additional period of five years for old vehicles.

Should not the Commission, and the Directorate-General for the Environment in particular, intervene and
draw up legislation providing for derogations from this measure? In view of what is at stake, the matter
should be regulated in a harmonised way at European level.

If so, should not an additional period be granted in order to allow the necessary modifications to be
carried out and, above all, to allow the owners of such vehicles, in particular vintage cars, to be properly
informed?

Finally, would it not be appropriate to refer the matter to the Scientific Steering Committee for an
assessment?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

Commission Directive 91/659/EEC of 3 December 1991 adapting to technical progress Annex I to Council
Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and
preparations (asbestos) (1) restricts the use of asbestos in all
its forms. Thus, asbestos in the form of
amphibole is prohibited and asbestos in the form of chrysotile is limited to certain specific applications.