WRITTEN QUESTION E-1226/02 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission. Location of the Commission's public health departments.
Date: 2002-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, Luxembourg, administration of the Institutions, administrative structures, operation of the Institutions, workplace

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

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/99

location, heavy workload and motivation problems), the ADMIN directorate has agreed to temporary staff
being recruited to fill a number of permanent posts and, more recently, to the establishment of a branch
office of the public health directorate in Brussels’. The Director-General thus takes as the main argument
for a transfer to Brussels the uncertainty surrounding the continued existence of the directorate in
Luxembourg, whereas this uncertainty, the heavy workload and the recruiting of temporary staff instead of
officials all lie within his own control.

Therefore:

1.

I would like to know if the Commission intends to comply with the treaty and its protocols by
ensuring that the directorate in question is able to work under optimum conditions in Luxembourg.

2. Does the Commission intend to put a stop to the practice of recruiting temporary agents (and sending

them to Brussels) to fill the official posts provided for in Luxembourg?

3. Would it not be more logical to set up the public health Directorate-General in Luxembourg with a
view to developing in this location the public health policy called for by the Amsterdam Treaty, which
also laid down that certain Commission departments were to be located in Luxembourg? Does the
Commission consider it necessary to go against the general trend towards decentralisation being
followed in all the Member States (using new information and communication technologies, inter alia)
and to further encourage the growth of a massive administration in Brussels?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

1.
For the good functioning of the Commission, and to improve productivity and service co-ordination,
it is essential to attribute the tasks of the Commission Departments in a coherent and meaningful way to
their components located in the various sites. The Commission has, therefore, been reviewing the situation
of each Department for these purposes. Any action resulting from the review will, of course, take full
account of the Treaties and Protocols and be subject to appropriate consultations.

2.
For reasons beyond the control of the Commission and its Services, it has proved to be difficult to
attract suitably qualified staff to vacant permanent posts in the public health directorate in Luxembourg. In
the absence of reserve lists of specialised staff, it has consequently been necessary to recruit temporary
agents on certain permanent posts. This difficulty is not limited to the Public Health Directorate in
Luxembourg and the Commission therefore hopes that the fact that new reserve lists will soon be available
following the competitions launched in 2001 will shortly assist in alleviating the general problem. In
addition, the Commission’s services are examining the question of the timing of the launching of new
competitions for public health specialists.

3.
The Commission would point out that, in the public interest, it has been necessary over the decades
to periodically make structural changes among and within Directorates General in order to take proper
account of changing policy needs and realities. Amongst other changes made in October 1999, therefore,
the Commission regrouped the public health directorate with food safety, animal and plant health
directorates and the consumer protection directorate in the new Health and Consumer Protection
Directorate General in order to achieve maximum synergies from the integration of these policy areas. This
Directorate General currently has one main work site, which is located in Brussels, and two ‘decentralised’
sites (cid:1) Luxembourg and Grange in Ireland. The Commission considers that it would not therefore be
appropriate, economical, or justified in policy terms to break up this new Directorate General by creating a
separate Directorate General for Health. The review of the Commission’s services in Luxembourg is not
motivated by centralising purposes, it is directly related to trying to secure the most rational and efficient
use of resources, taking proper account of overall staffing obligations in the Grand Duchy and of the
professional interests of staff.

For a variety of reasons (cid:1) and unlike the other Institutions (cid:1) the Commission Services operate on a
multiplicity of sites spread out across many of the Member States of the present European Union. There is
no aspiration to ‘encourage the growth of a massive administration in Brussels’. Indeed, when the total
number of people currently employed by the Commission in all capacities, as permanent or other staff, is
near 25 000 (with some 17 000 of
there is no aspiration to create a ‘massive’
administration of any kind, anywhere.

them in Brussels)