European Commission

Sir,

Your front-page story ("EU targets huddling smokers' last haven: the office doorway", 3 June 2007) seems to be based on the tenuous premise that there is no smoke without fire. In this case, there is smoke but no fire. There no EU proposals to restrict smoking outdoors.

What we have done is to carry out a public consultation exercise (Green paper) inviting EU Member states and stakeholders to look at possible policy options on health risks related to smoking. Recent EU-wide surveys (Eurobarometer 272, May 2007) show tobacco, smoke-free policies to be extremely popular with EU citizens: a growing number, almost 9 out of 10, support smoke-free offices, indoor workplaces & public spaces. Half of EU citizens do not permit smoking in their home and four out of five recognise second-hand smoke to be harmful to their health.

Rather than rushing to rash conclusions, we will analyse the responses and report the main findings before considering if any further steps are needed.

We may indeed conclude that the option we set out to take no action whatsoever at an EU level with national measures deemed sufficient to tackle the threat to public health, is the way to go.

Your readers would be better served if you refrained from calling out the fire brigade unnecessarily!

Yours faithfully

Anthony Gooch
Head of Media
European Commission in the United Kingdom

Dear Sir

The article by Karyn Miller on the European Court of Auditors' verdict on the EU accounts ("Only 7pc of EU spending correct", 14 January 2007) gives a totally misleading impression about the standard of controls over the budget of the European Union.

The European Court of Auditors has consistently given the EU accounts a clean opinion, subject to certain reservations, which is as good as most public administrations receive.

Around 80% of the total budget is spent by member states directly. The European Commission has consistently supported a reform that would give member states greater responsibility in auditing how they spend this money. In our view this would be fair for the taxpayer as well as the Commission whose image the current system grossly distorts.

The reform initiative has received backing from the UK government but so far the member states have not been able to agree to it.

In the meanwhile the Commission has pushed through significant improvements to the system. We have introduced the first set of accrual-based accounts based on IPSAS accounting standards, a reform most EU countries and international organisations like the UN are still far from having completed.

The European Court of Auditors audited these accounts and showed its appreciation of the work done. Indeed, the Commission is now seen as a front-runner in public sector accounting reform.

Finally, the complex multinational nature of the budget and the fact that so much of the spending is controlled by the member states means that it is extremely difficult for the Court to give an unqualified opinion on all aspects of the spending. This is not because money would have been lost or misspent but simply because, for the reasons mentioned above, the Court has not been able to obtain assurance on the probity of all claims on EC funds.

In the UK, for example, around 500 accounts representing the expenditure of the British government are audited and signed off separately, with some not passing the test each year, whereas the whole of the EU expenditure is subject to a single verdict.

The UK's Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, recently told the UK House of Lords’ European Union Committee that if the UK had a similar test to the European one, because some accounts did not get a clean bill of health, he might have to qualify the whole of British central government expenditure.

Yours faithfully

Reijo Kemppinen
Head of the European Commission in the United Kingdom

SIR –  I read with interest UKIP MEP Gerard Batten’s report for the Bruges Group Think Tank on the cost of the European Union (report, August 31). Now for some facts. In 2004, the last year for which complete data are available, the UK’s contribution to the EU budget was around EUR 9.4bn (excluding Traditional Own Resources) or 11.3% of the EU total.

The operating budgetary balance for the UK , that is, excluding administrative expenditure and including the UK rebate (EUR 5.3bn in 2004) was EUR 2.9bn. That makes 47.5 EUR per head --  £32 per year, or just 8p a day.  

The report calculates a UK contribution of £44 bn over six years -- which averages out at £7.33 bn a year, just 1.33% of this year’s total UK government expenditure.

The Bruges Group’s calculations of so-called “indirect costs” of the CAP, fishery policy or “over-regulation” are purely political statements without any scientific or economic basis.

EU money spent within the UK (EUR 7.1bn in 2004) is spent by the UK authorities on objectives of their own choosing, not by the EU on propaganda.

The Bruges Group claim that EU membership will cost everybody in the UK £873 a head in 2007 is absurd. If it were true, the UK would end up paying nearly two-thirds of the entire EU budget of Euro 116.4 bn!

Finally, a look at what that £32 per head bought for the UK: more trade and investment, not to mention the positive effects of enlargement. The British enjoy access to the world’s biggest single market, allowing us to work, live, study, retire and get healthcare in any member state. Membership of the EU gives the UK the right to shape the rules of that market. Mr Batten thinks the UK should give this up. He needs to think again.

Reijo Kemppinen

Dear Sir

 This is to state that there is no foundation whatsoever to MEP Ashley Mote’s allegations regarding improprieties in the EU’s management of funding. (‘EU attacked for hoarding £14bn in secret accounts, 13 June).

There are categorically no secret bank accounts, whether inside or outside the EU, and no massive cash mountain. The European Commission calls on Member States to contribute in line with a budget they decide and agree – and scrupulously respects its obligation to refund any money not needed.

If there is a shortfall in a given year, the Commission calls in extra funds. But this has the effect of reducing the amount a Member State pays the following year.

Yours faithfully

Reijo Kemppinen
Head of the European Commission in the United Kingdom

 

Dear Sir 

Daniel Hannan’s article “How Europe unwittingly fuels bloodshed in Israel” (Daily Telegraph 17 May) has - I hope unwittingly - fuelled a great deal of misinformation.

Mr Hannan bases his article on the premise that the EU is seeking to resume aid to the Palestinian Authority. This is simply untrue. We are leading international efforts to develop a new mechanism that will channel aid to meet basic needs of the people, precisely because we will not give aid to or through the PA government as long as it has not accepted the principle of non-violence, recognised Israel or committed itself to the Roadmap.

The article is sadly misinformed about this mechanism. Far from pursuing assistance to the Palestinian people to “signal opposition to Washington” this plan has been conceived with the endorsement of the US, in the so called Quartet (EU, US, UN and Russia).

Your columnist’s idea that EU aid has created a lethargic, subsidy dependent society in the Palestinian Territories seems, strangely, not to take account of the fact that restrictions on movement and access make the normal functioning of the Palestinian economy impossible - and ignores the fact that the prime source of revenue for the Palestinians is not donor aid, but rather the tax receipts and customs duties transferred monthly in normal times by the Israelis, but currently suspended.

I am with the Israeli official anonymously cited in your article who says “If you guys can figure out how to get money to ordinary Palestinians you will be doing us a favour”.    Readers may feel that those who work for the Israeli government are in a better position than Mr Hannan to judge this question.

Yours faithfully

Emma Udwin
European Commission Spokesperson for External Relations

Dear Sir

Following the publication of your article ‘Lawyer urges club to rethink age attitude’ (30 March), I would like to clarify the European Commission's position to avoid any possible misinterpretations concerning age discrimination law, particularly in relation to football.

Although European law forbids discrimination in employment on the grounds of age, amongst other reasons, exceptions are allowed if this is essential for the job. The directive (2000/78/EC) does not oblige employers to recruit someone who is not competent to fulfil the essential functions of the job. This may well be an issue in jobs such as football, which involves a high level of physical fitness.

The EU directive will be incorporated into UK law in line with the UK Government’s interpretation of the directive. It is difficult to say exactly what impact the specific UK legislation will have until it is communicated to the Commission, at which point it will be examined to check its conformity with the EU legislation.

Short-term contracts are already offered to numerous football players, not just young and old ones. Players who are susceptible to injury or those still needing to prove themselves also receive these contracts, and this is in no way linked to their age. In addition, a football player's ‘prime age’ can be very difficult to gauge - for certain players, such as goalkeepers, this is generally much later than for, say, strikers.

I would like to wish Teddy Sheringham happy 40th birthday. But he still has some way to go to beat the record of the oldest player to play in a competitive match in England. That was John Ryan, a grandfather aged 52 and 11 months, who played at the end of Doncaster Rover's side's 4-2 win at Hereford in 2003. He also happened to be the Rover chairman.

Yours faithfully

Katharina von Schnurbein
European Commission Spokesperson for Employment & Social Affairs

Dear Sir

Church organs will not be silenced by the European Union (“Hands off our church organs” – Daily Express 22 March).

The UK government voted in favour of this directive in 2002. The measure aims to protect people from the health risks related to lead.

The directive does not apply to existing church organs, which can also continue to be repaired using lead. Only new organs built after 1 July 2006 will be affected and even then organ builders can apply for an exemption.

Yours faithfully,

Reijo Kemppinen
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Far from being protectionist, the European Commission has proposed measures against some Chinese and Vietnamese importers of shoes into the EU because the prices they charge are clearly below normal production costs (22 February). This practice, made possible through state intervention, has contributed to the loss of 40,000 jobs in the European shoe manufacturing sector.

Even though import prices for these leather shoes have fallen by more than 20% over the past five years, European consumers actually pay slightly more than five years ago. Envisaged duties would be just over £1 added onto the price of shoes that cost retailers around £5.70. As these shoes are sold to consumers for £25-65, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a margin to absorb a small duty exists.

This issue should not be confused with the “bra wars” of last year as these concerned transition measures following a shift in trade volumes following the liberalisation of textile trade with China and had nothing to do with unfair pricing.

The European Commission is strongly in favour of competition in a global market. We are not targeting comparative advantage for shoe-producers in China and Vietnam: we are targeting uncompetitive practice.

Yours faithfully,

Reijo Kemppinen
Head of Representation

Dear Sir

The European Commission is in favour of keeping the British pinta. Under a new drive against red tape, we want to repeal a number of useless European laws leaving businesses free to decide what kind of packaging to use for goods such as the pint.

As unelected, barmy eurocrats we cannot, however, decide these things alone. The elected representatives in the European Parliament, including those from the UK, will decide on Thursday whether or not they agree with us. 

Even if the majority want to introduce standard sizes for products like milk packaging, this will not happen without the agreement of the UK Government.

The pinta is here to stay, protected and not threatened by the European Union's rules.

Yours faithfully,

Reijo Kemppinen
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not being “sneaked in” – it was agreed by all EU member states, including Britain, in December 2000 at the summit in Nice (“EU rights ‘sneaked in’ – Sun 18 January).

The Charter forms a chapter of the Constitution but it was approved separately. It outlines EU citizens’ rights but it does not establish new ones – it merely assembles existing fundamental rights that were previously scattered over various international treaties.

Yours faithfully,

Reijo Kemppinen
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

It is misleading to claim that “GM food can be labelled as organic” (5 January 2006).

European Commission proposals on the labelling of organic food not only maintain, but reinforce, current zero tolerance for the use of GMOs and their derivatives in the production of organic food and feedstuffs.

There would be serious ramifications to organic producers were thresholds for accidental contamination to be excluded. If organic farmers or processors were to be held responsible for the tiniest contamination possible it would effectively destroy the possibility to produce organic foods anywhere but on a pristine island in the Pacific Ocean. Organic food would not only simply become too expensive, it would also be impossible to produce.

Yours faithfully,

Reijo Kemppinen
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

It is misleading to suggest that the European Union determines at what age people may retire (“EU law letting partners retire later ‘will block young talent’” – Daily Telegraph, 28 November).

The aim of age discrimination legislation, adopted unanimously by all EU countries including the UK, is to ensure equal treatment for men and women in the workplace. However, it excludes the issue of retirement age.

Furthermore, the directive concerned allows differences of treatment based on age when justified, e.g. by national employment policy, labour market or vocational training objectives.

Yours faithfully,

Sarah Lambert
Deputy-Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Mirror readers will be pleased to hear that there are no plans to replace the 999 emergency number with 112 (“Nein, nein, nein, it’s 112 – Daily Mirror 7 November). When the chip pan is on fire it’s still 999.

The EU simply wants to make sure that people travelling abroad have swift access to emergency services just as they do in their home countries. That is why the EU-wide 112 number was created. It’s been in use in Britain since the early nineties, running alongside 999.

Commissioner Viviane Reding has said that she will make full use of the Commission’s powers to make sure EU member states keep people informed of this potentially life-saving number, not “to force through the change”, as misquoted by Tony Parsons.

Yours faithfully,

Sarah Lambert
Deputy-Head of Representation

Dear Editor

The EU does not prohibit priests, or anyone else, from using a ladder when changing a light bulb (Change a lightbulb? £1,300 thanks to EU – Daily Express 19 October).

The EU directive the article refers to aims to ensure that people working at heights are protected against fatal accidents at work, the single biggest cause of workplace deaths, according to the UK Health and Safety Executive. The directive explicitly states that if the work carried out is of short duration, using a ladder is totally acceptable.

Directives only provide a framework for member states. It is up to national authorities – in the UK’s case the Health and Safety Executive – to implement the regulations in a way they see fit.

Yours faithfully,

Reijo Kemppinen
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Mrs Gagneux can rest assured – traditional French cheeses made from unpasteurised milk are not under threat from EU hygiene regulations (July 10) because they are exempt.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Doctors from European countries who come to work in the UK have not been exempted from English language tests, at least not "under EU law". (Danger of EU doctors who cannot speak English 5 July). It is up to local health authorities and national governments to set recruitment criteria, including language requirements, for NHS staff. If doctors from other EU countries meet these requirements, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to work here.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Protecting outdoor workers such as lollipop ladies from skin cancer is not a “barmy” EU plan, but a sensible one (Suncream for too-hot lolly ladies, 26 June) due to be voted on soon by MEPs and ministers – including those from the UK. It obliges bosses to take responsibility for their workers, but the fine details, such as handing out parasols (highly unlikely) and sun cream (what’s wrong with that?) to lollipop ladies will be worked out by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive, not the EU.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation

Dear Editor

In your article about outdoor workers and their exposure to sunlight, the headline "Now EU wants a commissioner for suntans" (21 June) rather belittles what was otherwise an interesting and balanced piece of journalism. Not only is the headline incorrect, but it bears no relation to the content of the article, suggesting to readers that the EU wants a commissioner for suntans when it does not.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation

Click here [19 KB] for the Evening Standard's response.

Dear Editor

The prime minister appears to have, albeit unwittingly, recycled an old euromyth. There is EU no directive on outside playgrounds, and no village in the Cotswolds or anywhere else has been forced to take to down their seesaws as a result of EU regulations (Attack on the euro bunglers 26 May). He may have been referring to voluntary standards on playground equipment, drawn up by the (admittedly drably named) European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). This is a non-EU body made up of national standards groups from 28 European countries, including the British Standards Institution. It sets guidelines for products in order to improve consumer safety. But these guidelines are entirely voluntary.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation

Dear Editor

The term "light ale" refers to the colour of the drink, not its alcohol or calorie content (Hands off our light ale 12 May). The European Commission does not consider the "light" in ale to be a health or nutrition claim, but in any case this would be for the UK government to determine under the EC's proposals, soon to be voted on by MEPs and ministers – including those from the UK. They are designed to ensure that consumers are better informed about the food and drink they buy, and are protected from misleading slogans on products. For example, the term "90% fat free" implies the product is low in fat. Equally dubious is the claim that a product will "reduce calorie intake" – especially if you then eat a cake.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation

Dear Editor

The EU has no plans to ban Britain's brickies from taking off their shirts (EU Beef Ban 5 April). Ministers and MEPs (including those from the UK) will soon vote on proposals that require employers to assess the risk of eye and skin damage for builders who are in the sun all day. New rules would also protect workers, such as welders, who might be exposed to lasers and infrared radiation. But if there’s no risk, there's no reason for builders and brickies to change their ways.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation

Dear Editor

It does not cost taxpayers £2,138 for each book borrowed from the EC library (22 February). This dubious figure was arrived at by dividing some of the library's running costs by some of the number of books that were borrowed in person. This fails to take account of 750,000 visits made to library's online catalogue, nearly 10,000 email enquiries and 8,000 phone calls library staff deal with annually, and visits from students of 83 different universities. That's not wasting public money, that's providing a decent service, which members of the British public can apply to use if they so wish.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation

Dear Editor

The European Commission is not involved in pro-constitution propaganda (Propaganda? We’re just keeping you all informed, says Brussels 18 February). The grants to British organisations listed in your article were given to raise awareness about EU enlargement, which took on 1 May last year, and the Convention on the future of Europe, in which all main Westminster parties were participating. All the grants were approved in 2003, well before the UK had decided to hold a referendum. All the substantial operations were complete before the draft Constitutional Treaty was signed last October. There is a difference between giving information on these issues and promoting the European constitution, as there is a difference between an article that is balanced and one that is inaccurate.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation