WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/02 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Reporting of public finance data.
Date: 2002-04-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative transparency, application of EU law, dissemination of information, public finance

C 277 E/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

(Muttawah) prevented them from fleeing the fire because they were not wearing headscarves and no male
relatives were present to collect them. Furthermore, the religious police prevented rescue teams from
entering the school as men are not allowed to mix with women. This tragic event is a stark illustration of
the appalling effects of gender discrimination on human life. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is a party to the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Will the Council exert pressure on the government of Saudi Arabia to launch an investigation as a matter
of urgency into these tragic deaths and bring those responsible to justice to prevent similar occurrences in
the future? Will the Council make representations to the Saudi Government to put an end to the policies
and practices which devalue the lives of women and perpetuate discrimination against women?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

As already indicated in answer to question No 0185/02 of Carlos Carnero González, as regards Saudi
Arabia, human rights issues,
including the status of women and their discrimination, are repeatedly
addressed in bilateral contacts and in the context of the political dialogue with the Gulf Cooperation
Council, of which Saudi Arabia is a member.

(2002/C 277 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Reporting of public finance data

1.
In the light of the failure of some Member States to report their public finance data in line with
ESA 95, will the Commission reconsider its proposal to exempt all Member States from the requirement of
producing a prospectus for any securities issue?

2.

Does the Commission agree that market discipline to enforce transparency would be beneficial?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behlalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

The Commission fully shares the view of the Honourable Member that Member States should report

1.
their public finance data in line with the European System of National Accounts ESA 95.

Sovereign issuers have been exempted by Community legislation from the obligation to publish a
prospectus for more than twenty years.

When adopting its new proposal (1) on prospectuses, the Commission decided to maintain this policy for
the following reasons:

8 prospectuses are generally ill adapted to describe the financial situation of a Member State;

8 the more appropriate way to improve the financial reporting system of Member States is through
upgraded national accounting standards and more timely disclosure of this financial information;

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/135

8 obliging Community sovereign issuers to publish a prospectus would cause them a competitive
disadvantage compared to their main global competitors, i.e. sovereign issuers from third countries,
who do not have to comply with such an obligation.

The Commission is still of the opinion that it is not necessary to impose this obligation on Member States.
The possibility that Member States might not be able to meet their obligations in future seems remote,
notably for countries who are bound by the Maastricht criteria, which impose very strict requirements as
regards public debt.

2.
The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member that market discipline is beneficial to
enforce transparency requirements. Such market discipline exists at present in the field of securities issued
by sovereign issuers. For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission thinks that imposing on sovereign
issuers the obligation to publish a prospectus is not the appropriate instrument for increasing transparency
on the financial situation of sovereign issuers.

(1) OJ C 272, 1.9.1998.

(2002/C 277 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1034/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Unanswered questions about the ECB’s role in campaigning for the euro in Britain

The Commission has failed to answer my detailed question (P-0435/02 (1)) regarding the European Central
Bank’s advertisement for the euro.

To reiterate: Why is the ECB, as an independent central bank, campaigning for the euro in Britain? Is this
information unsolicited, or has the British Government asked the ECB to mount such a campaign? Where
does the money come from to pay for the campaign?

Is the decision to enter the euro a national decision, or is it one in which the European institutions may
legally interfere? Please note, I make no reference to the obligations of the Member States with regard to
your original answer to this part of my question.

Additionally: How much money does the ECB have available to spend on campaigns or information? What
are the restrictions on the kind of campaign the ECB may or may not finance or initiate?

(1) See page 46.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2002)

The unanswered questions of
the Honourable Member concern the European Central Bank. The
Commission is not in a position and is not entitled to reply to questions on behalf of the European
Central Bank.