ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1052/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Regionalization of Objective 3 funding in the UK

Many NGOs in the UK feel that the proposed regionalization of Objective 3 funds will lead to the exclusion of schemes organized for the benefit of specific sectoral groups such as women of ethnic minorities, as such schemes, although very successful, are often regarded as not being value for money. It has therefore been suggested that some form of national sectoral coordination should be maintained to ensure that funding remains accessible to such groups.

What is the Commission's view of these criticisms and regionalization?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (31 May 1996)

The background to current discussions on the regionalisation of European social fund (ESF) actions in the United Kingdom is the submission to the Commission by the United Kingdom authorities of their plan for objective 3 for the period 1997-1999. This formed the basis for the negotiations on the new single programming document (SPD) for 1997-1999 to be held in the coming months.

What is already becoming clear is that the new SPD, in line with the principle of partnership, will include specific arrangements for the joint devolved management of the programme. As with all single programming documents, the SPD monitoring committee will remain the responsible authority. The Commission is represented on all such monitoring committees, but has no specific authority over the selection of projects, which is carried out according to rigorous selection criteria.

The Commission will continue to ensure that, in drawing up project selection criteria, the partnership takes account of factors other than simply cost alone. The Commission is of the opinion that project selection criteria agreed at the regional level, within a broad national framework, will increase the transparency of project selection. Moreover, such criteria should also assess the extent to which high quality projects are addressing the needs of the key sub-target groups identified under the 3 SPD. It is the firm intention of the Commission that the new SPD should facilitate the provision of high quality projects addressing the clearly identified needs of the long-term unemployed, unemployed young people with little or no qualifications, those at risk of exclusion from the labour market (including ethnic minorities), and potential beneficiaries of equal opportunities measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/96 by Pieter Dankert (PSE) and Carlos Pimenta (ELDR) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Visit by the Commissioner for Regional Policy to Portugal

The Commissioner for Regional Policy is apparently to visit Portugal in the near future?

Will he be visiting the new Tagus bridge, partly financed from the Cohesion Fund?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1996)

Since her visit to Portugal on 25 and 26 March was the first following the recent change of government, the Member of the Commission responsible for regional policy took the opportunity of meeting all the relevant ministers together to review both general issues and a number of major projects, including the new road crossing of the Tagus in the Lisbon area.

On this point, owing to a very busy schedule, the Commissioner did not visit the project in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1414/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Desecration of graves

According to a report in the Turkish newspaper YENI YUÜZGIL, for several days unknown persons have been damaging graves in a Christian cemetery on the island of Khalki in Turkey. The damage is not confined to desecration of the graves; statues and gravestones in cemetery have also been damaged.

How will the Commission react to this act of barbarism which is only the latest in a series of Turkish acts designed to eradicate Istanbul's Christian element?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1996)

The Commission has no specific information about the incident to which the Honourable Member refers.

It will convey to the Turkish authorities the outrage caused by these events.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1050/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Establishment of an artificial kidney unit in the Cyclades

A very serious problem facing kidney patients is that they need to undergo haemodialysis in specialized hospitals on a daily basis. Kidney sufferers living on Greek islands, such as the Cyclades, are forced to move to the major urban centres, because most artificial kidney units are located there; thus these patients whose life is difficult enough anyway, are obliged to live far from their homes.

Since new technologies (for example, the EURO-ISDN networks) could enable them to remain where they live, will the Commission say:

1. Is provision made, under the multifund operational programme for the South Aegean region, for the funding of an artificial kidney unit in the Cyclades?

2. What is the funding timetable for this programme?

3. What is the take-up rate of resources for the above programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (14 June 1996)

1. There is no provision for part-financing artificial kidney units in the multifund operational programme (MOP) for the South Aegean devised as part of the 1994-99 Community support framework (CSF) for Greece. As a rule, regional multifund operations part-finance hospital infrastructure (e.g. buildings) but not equipment, the cost of which is generally met from the national budget and may be part-financed by the Health Services and Social Benefits operational programme for Greece under the 1994-99 CSF.

2. The MOP for the South Aegean runs from 1994-99.

3. The take-up rate is currently around 15%.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0418/96 by Yannos Kranidiotis (PSE) to the Council (29 February 1996)

Subject: Seizure of Greek Cypriot property in the occupied sector of Cyprus

During the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the occupying troops forced out the Greek Cypriots living in the occupied territories and seized their homes and property. Many of those homes were subsequently illegally occupied by foreigners invited in by the occupying forces. An example of this is the case of Dudley Smith, British MP and member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe. This British MP is in unlawful possession of a house belonging to the Greek Cypriot, Evangelos Hatziyorgios, who was driven out by force and now lives in a refugee camp in the free sector of Cyprus.

Dudley Smith is trying to sell this house, mindless of the fact that he is in breach of property rights and is colluding in the continued violation of human rights by the Turkish occupying forces.

What representations has the Council made to the Turkish authorities to protect the human rights of the population of Cyprus and what measures has it taken to persuade the British MP to act within the law?

Reply (18 July 1996)

The particular situation described by the Honourable Member has never been brought to the Council's attention.

As regards his question concerning the protection of human rights in Cyprus, the Council would point out that it attaches the greatest importance to respect for human rights and democratic principles in all third countries with which it maintains cooperation or association links.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1628/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: EU funding of town twinning

Is the Commission aware that the rules governing funding for town twinning discriminate against small communities as a grant of ECU 0.01 per km and per person is available only if the total is above ECU 500.

Torcy in France has a total population of 900 and is 400 km from the town of Rettendon in Essex. Hence in order to be eligible for a grant about 70 Torceans would have to visit, which would be an extraordinarily high percentage of the village and virtually impossible to host.

Is the Commission also aware that the individual costs of travel are the same if not higher for small communities and that therefore European small communities are losing out when they should be getting extra support?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

The Commission has introduced a Community programme on town twinning in order to facilitate new twinnings, in particular between towns in the outlying regions of the Community and also to help deepen already existing links. Naturally, the Commission cannot support all the twinnings operations taking place each day in Europe and for that reason a number of priorities have been established with regard to the granting of aid. These include encouraging exchanges between small towns and between towns which are very far apart. To give but one figure, in 1995 over half the towns which received Community aid under the programme had less that 5 000 inhabitants.

Subsidies for transport costs are calculated at present (in 1996) on the basis of two scales: ECU 0.015 and ECU 0.03 depending on the geographical location of the towns. The amount of the subsidy for transport costs is based on the distance between the towns and the number of people involved in the exchange. In the light of these factors, some proposed exchanges do not arrive at the minimum threshold of ECU 500. Experience has shown that these exchanges are very few.

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that in the case he quotes, the French village of Torcy which has 900 inhabitants recently received a subsidy of ECU 500 for the transport costs of a group of 40 persons who will go to Rettendon in August 1996.

While the quantitative factors are important, the qualitative and European aspects, such as content and the themes dealt with during the exchange are decisive in the decision on whether or not to grant financial aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1277/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (24 May 1996)

Subject: Funds allocated to the United Kingdom

The Commission has granted an additional appropriation of ECU 875 m to the United Kingdom to help it deal with the effects of mad cow disease.

Does the Commission consider that the granting of this aid should in any way affect the size of the annual rebate received by the United Kingdom?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (28 June 1996)

The bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis will lead to supplementary expenditure much of which will be spent in the United Kingdom. The final cost for the budget will of course depend on the payments actually made. The forecasts are, at the moment, as follows:

- budgetary year 1996: about 1500 MECU (of which 260 as compensation for the slaughtering and the destruction of animals, 370 for supplementary stockage contributions, and 850 for income compensation for farmers of beef meat).

- budgetary year 1997: about 900 MECU (of which almost 400 MECU as compensation for the slaughtering and the destruction of animals and a reserve of 500 MECU for the other interventions of which the cost is not yet known).

The general principle of the mechanism (a partial compensation for the difference between the United Kingdom share of payments to the Community budget and the share of Community expenditures in the United Kingdom) is unaffected by any additional expenditure to eradicate BSE. However the amount of the United Kingdom abatement does change as a consequence of any additional expenditure (whether for BSE or other reasons) allocated to the United Kingdom. It increases (less than proportionately) when the share of expenditure in the United Kingdom reduces and it reduces (less than proportionately) when the share of expenditure in the United Kingdom increases. In the case in question, the abatement is therefore reduced by additional BSE expenditure.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1746/96 by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE) to the Commission (20 June 1996)

Subject: Definition of unemployment

In Sweden, unemployed persons who are offered publicly-funded training or work on labour market schemes are no longer described as unemployed. This means that they cannot travel abroad to look for ordinary work on the open labour market whilst still drawing unemployment benefit. People who turn down publicly-funded courses as part of labour market schemes are in the same situation. Rather than preventing the unemployed from taking the initiative or making them dependent on public assistance, such schemes should, as a general rule, encourage people to work. Is there a common European definition of the term 'unemployed'?

How does the Commission define the term 'unemployed'? Does it agree that basically the definition should make it easier for people to seek work outside publicly-funded labour market schemes, i.e. on the open market? Is it contemplating the introduction of such a definition?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1996)

For the analysis and follow-up of the labour market, for the dissemination of statistical information and for the implementation of its structural policies (distribution of structural funds), the Commission uses a definition of unemployment which is in accordance with the recommendations of the International Labour Office (ILO) and is generally suitable for international comparisons. According to this definition, all persons above 15 years of age who are out of work (who have not done a single hour of paid work during the reference week), who are actively looking for a job and who are available for work (ready to start work within two weeks) are considered unemployed.

The definition of unemployment used by the Commission is therefore a statistical definition which aims to measure unemployment in a way that is as comparable as possible with other countries, and which is independent of each Member State's own statutory regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1220/96 by Luisa Todini (UPE) to the Commission (10 May 1996)

Subject: The Chernobyl nuclear power station

Following Parliament's resolution on the tenth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster (B4-0472/96), the fire at Chernobyl on 23 April 1996 and the incident which led to a leak of radioactive material during the night of Thursday, 25 April 1996, would the Commission state:

1. What practical steps the EU intends to take with a view to limiting the damage to the population and the environment;

2. What data and analyses are available with regard to the environmental damage caused and the impact on the health of those affected by the recent events;

3. What data and analyses are available with regard to radioactive substances having been spread as far as several hundred kilometres from the site of the disaster owing to the fire and the wind.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (7 June 1996)

1. No request for assistance has been received following any events in the period to which the question refers.

In the context of radiation protection research action of the fourth framework programme, six collaborative projects were started this year and several more will be negotiated before the end of the year, including proposals submitted to the Copernicus programme. They deal with environmental restoration, emergency management and health consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

Furthermore, the Commission has work in hand intended to implement the G7 memorandum of understanding which foresees the closure of the two operational Chernobyl reactors in the year 2000.

2. The Commission has no information on a leakage of radioactivity on the night of 25-26 April 1996. However, on 24 April, during the replacement of filters associated with ventilation discharges from the sarcophagus housing the remains of the reactor destroyed by the 1986 accident, some contamination spread to four rooms. On the basis of the information available to the Community, there was no release to the environment and no significant exposure of personnel. This incident resulted from a failure to respect the prescribed filter changing procedures and was thus rated at Level-1, the lowest level on the International atomic energy agency international nuclear events scale.

As regards the fires which started on 23 April 1996, these concerned parts of the 30 km exclusion zone around Chernobyl and did not threaten the power station site. It has been reported that, as might be expected, the smoke particles carried radioactive contamination. While no information has been obtained on the level of contamination, it is clear that the radioactivity involved would be only a minute fraction of that associated with the 1986 accident and would very likely have only a local influence.

3. In this situation dispersion modelling would only be relevant to the area around the site and would require detailed local information. It is not to be expected that the contamination would be detectable in the Community and indeed no reports of such contamination have been received by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1449/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: 'Underworked and underpaid' - a TUC report on young people's labour market experiences in the 1990s

Is the Commission aware that the TUC published on 14 February 1996 a report on young people's labour market experiences in the 1990s?

Is the Commission further aware that according to this report the gap between unemployment rates for all ages and unemployment for the under-25s is greater in the mid-90s than in the mid-80s?

Is the Commission also aware that young people's relative pay has also fallen in the same period, so that young men now earn 73.9% of the hourly average compared to 82.8% in April 1984, while young women's earnings are now 66.3% of average hourly earnings compared with 70.5% in April 1984?

Given these alarming figures what steps does the Commission intend to take to alleviate the hardship faced by young people?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 July 1996)

The Commission is well aware that young people have been among the worst hit by unemployment. In the Community the unemployment rate among young people has risen from 19.6% in 1988 to 21% in 1996. There is no single reason why the unemployment rate for young people is so high. It requires a wide range of measures to address the very distinct nature of the underlying problems, and concerted action by the widest possible range of actors at local, regional, national and Community level.

The conclusions agreed at the Essen European Council, further endorsed by the Cannes and Madrid Councils, highlighted the needs of the young as a priority for action in the Member States. In adopting the single report from the Ecofin and social affairs Councils, heads of state and of government issued a clear mandate for action in favour of young people, and the Commission will continue to monitor actions and measures in the Member States to the benefit of all disadvantaged groups in the labour market. The Commission's proposal for a Confidence Pact ((CSE(96)1 final. )) also urges a joint initiative by the social partners for the integration of young people into the labour market, including better interaction between the beginning of working life, and innovative forms or organisation of working time.

In addition, the Commission will continue to fund a wide range of activities in favour of young people through the structural funds and in particular through objective 3 of the European social fund. It has also developed a particular strategy to promote youth employment through its Youthstart programme, which is designed to underpin financially Member State efforts and specific measures for young people. It encourages them to explore new options in the fight against youth unemployment, especially through the transnational exchange of experience and support for local projects which are not part of existing national programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0936/96 by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Council (24 April 1996)

Subject: Financial provision for veterinary inspectors

On the occasion of the Council agreement on Directive 95/29/EC ((OJ L 148 of 30.6.1995, p.52. )) on the transport of animals in June 1995, reference was made to the importance of extra veterinary inspectors to be taken on by the Commission for the purpose of monitoring the implementation and enforcement of this directive.

Can the Council confirm that proper financial provision was made in the budget for these additional inspectors and, if so, how much finance and for how many posts?

Reply (2 August 1996)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to implement Council Decisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1741/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Dismissal of an official

For what reasons has the Commission dismissed a Spanish official, Mr Fernando Mansito, under the regulation which entitles the College of Commissioners to do so without having to account for their decision? Mr Mansito chaired meetings of the Standing Veterinary Committee, which was responsible for investigating the embargo on British cattle following the problem with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1996)

A restructuring of the responsibilities of the deputy directors general in the Agriculture directorate general is under discussion. It is not linked to the current discussions on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. No decision has yet been taken by the Commission on the position of Mr Mansito.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1743/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Surveyors and industrial experts

Although Community regulations recognize the traditional rôles of engineers and architects, they do not recognize the professions of surveyors and industrial experts specializing in building, which creates significant confusion regarding the rôles of these two professional categories.

Despite countless requests (for a professional register, for recognition, for legal equality, etc.) the EU had not so far managed to resolve the issue of recognition for the category of surveyor.

Could the Commission draw up a directive to define the sphere of activity of surveyors and industrial experts and determine their rôles in areas such as:

1. structural design, statistical calculations, supervision and book-keeping in respect of new buildings;

2. book-keeping in respect of building work, standard health-related maintenance, preventive work and restructuring which does not require the use of reinforced concrete in renovation work on existing buildings;

3. the drawing-up of town-planning schemes?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-85/95 ((OJ C 190, 24.7.1995. )).