WRITTEN QUESTION E-1204/02 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council. ACP debt relief.
Date: 2002-04-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, European Development Fund, aid policy, debt reduction, least-developed country

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/97

Reply given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

The Commission does not yet have statistics illustrating a hypothetical increase in high
1., 2., 3. and 4.
indebtedness resulting from the introduction of the euro as legal tender. However, it would point out that
the near-universal practice of dual pricing during the first few months of 2002 was designed to reduce the
risk of faulty estimation of price levels by vulnerable households. In its recommendation of 11 October
2000 (1), it called for increased use of dual pricing in euros as of the beginning of the third quarter of
2001, so as to enable consumers to accustom themselves gradually to the new prices.

Moreover, the figures published by Eurostat on trends in the harmonised consumer price index in the
Member States which have changed over to the euro (cid:1) a vital indicator which enables consumers to chart
changes in their purchasing power (cid:1) do not support the hypothesis of a widespread price hike resulting
from the introduction of the euro as legal tender; the ‘euro effect’
is estimated at between 0 and
0,16 percentage points (quarter on quarter).

5. Measures to inform consumers in future Member States planning to introduce the euro will be
discussed with the countries concerned once a political decision has been taken to adopt it.

(1) Commission Recommendation of 11 October 2000 on measures to facilitate the preparation of economic operators

for the changeover to the euro, OJ C 303, 24.10.2000.

(2002/C 309 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1204/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council

(26 April 2002)

Subject: ACP debt relief

Would the Council clarify whether the proposal to ‘settle’ all outstanding special
developed ACP country after the full
completion point)?

loans to each least
implementation of HIPC means full cancellation of stock (after

In the light of the limited cost of such a proposal, and the specific nature of these loans, does the Council
agree that anything other than full cancellation of stock would in fact be considered as a lack of political
will to tackle the debt problem of low income countries?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

1.
As concerns special loans to the least developed ACP countries, attention is drawn to the Decision
No 2/2001 of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers of 20 December 2001 on settling all ACP HIPC LDCs’ (1) (2)
‘special
loans’ remaining after full application of HIPC debt alleviation mechanisms. Article 1 of this
decision states that ‘after completion point, the Community will settle all special loans to least developed
ACP countries qualified within the HIPC Initiative which will remain after full implementation of existing
enhanced HIPC mechanisms.’ According to Article 2, the necessary estimated EUR 55-60 million will be
financed through resources of the 8th EDF or previous funds, or from the 9th EDF. The 8th ‘whereas’ and
Article 3 set out in particular that, in case the settlement of all ACP LDCs HIPCs special loans should
exceed this amount, ‘the appropriate steps should be taken to provide for appropriate funding from EDF
resources’. The text of this decision appears in OJ L 56, 27.2.2002, p. 19.

C 309 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

The ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement sets out in Article 66 our general approach concerning the support
2.
for debt relief. Paragraph 4 of Article 66 (3) stipulates that ‘given the seriousness of the international debt
problem and its impact on economic growth, the Parties declare their readiness to continue to exchange
views, within the context of international discussions, on the general problem of debt, and without
prejudice to specific discussions taking place in the relevant fora.’

(1) Highly Indebted Poor Countries.
(2) Less Developed Countries.
(3) OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 30.

(2002/C 309 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1224/02

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Ilois people of the Chagos Islands

Is the Commission aware of the situation of the Ilois people of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean?

If so, can the Commission assist those people now living in Mauritius and the Seychelles to return to the
Chagos Islands?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The Commission is aware of the Chagos Islands issue and of the situation of the Ilois, most of whom have
lived in Mauritius (cid:1) generally in conditions of exclusion and poverty (cid:1) since their expulsion from the
Chagos Archipelago in the 1960s and 1970s.

It is aware that, following the November 2000 ruling of the British High Court that the expulsion of the
Ilois (who are British subjects) had been illegal, the British government was ordered to find a solution to
enable the islanders to return to their country. The British government is reported to have written to the
Mauritian Government on 18 March 2002 setting out their proposals on the Chagos issue. It is understood
that a Trust Fund is to be established and that compensation will be paid and other help (cid:1) particularly in
the form of training (cid:1) will be given to them.

Under the circumstances,
returning the Islanders to Chagos.

it is considered unlikely that the Commission would be asked to assist in

(2002/C 309 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1226/02

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Location of the Commission’s public health departments

It is laid down in the treaty and its protocols that the location of certain Commission departments dealing
with public health, health protection and health and safety at work should be Luxembourg.

However, some senior officials at the Commission are asking for all activities relating to the EU’s public
health policy to be concentrated in Brussels. Director-General R. J. Coleman, for example, has suggested
concentrating the whole public health directorate (SANCO G) in Brussels, arguing as follows: ‘Following an
internal audit report on the situation of staff in Luxembourg (high turnover because of uncertainty about