ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2994/97 by Anne Poisson (UPE) to the Commission (16 September 1997)

Subject: Wheat growing in the European Union and, in particular, the Ile de France region

The situation in the wheat-growing sector is a matter of great concern to the European Union as a whole. The figures are alarming: between 1992 and 1993, production fell by over 17% in Europe and nearly 60% in France, with the result that the EU has ceased to be an exporter and is now an importer of wheat.

In view of the concern felt by all semolina manufacturers and the hegemony being established by North American producers, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to revive wheat-growing in the EU and, in particular, the Ile de France region, which had always produced very high-quality wheat?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 October 1997)

Community production of durum wheat is supported by the compensatory payments introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops. ((OJ L 181, 1.7.1992. ))

In the case of durum wheat grown in traditional areas, which account for 90% of Community's total area under durum wheat, the compensatory payment is increased by a further ECU 358.6 per hectare.

Furthermore, specific aid of ECU 138.9 per hectare is granted to production in certain departments of France, including, in the Ile-de-France, Essonne, Seine-et-Marne and Yvelines, up to a maximum of 50 000 hectares.

In total, these production aids are equivalent to those paid for production before the 1992 reform of the common agricultural policy and, subject to weather conditions, guarantee supplies to industry in Europe. In Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000 final. )) the Commission stated that it had no intention of amending the aid schemes for the production of durum wheat.

The Commission considers that the current very high level of market prices is the result of exceptional weather conditions affecting both the quantity and the quality of production in Europe and the quantity produced in other production areas, such as North Africa.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2967/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Assistance in the home for people with special needs

About 700 physically and mentally handicapped people are living in appalling conditions on the Greek islands of Leros and Kalimnos, including 25 former sponge divers. They receive no help from their families or from qualified personnel and no financial assistance to help them lead decent lives. The 'Assistance in the Home' programme was launched in response to such problems. However, those referred to above are not included in it.

1. What is the scope and purpose of the programme?

2. Why were the above persons excluded from it?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1997)

The 'Assistance in the Home' programme referred to by the Honourable Member has not up to now received financial assistance from the Community.

Consequently, the Commission is unable to inform the Honourable Member about the implementation of the programme and would therefore suggest that he contact the Greek authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2523/97 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Transport of corpses in passenger aircraft

In the light of the recent macabre incident in which a coffin carried by Sabena airline opened during the flight which was reported in the press and discomfited passengers on the aircraft in question, will the Commission say what measures it has taken - or intends to take in future - to ensure that public health is protected from the inappropriate carriage of corpses in passenger aircraft?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1997)

At present, the transport of corpses is not subject to any specific national, international, or Community rules and no regulations are envisaged.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has drawn up provisions applicable to coffins as part of its conditions of carriage. These are applied by carriers and transit agents, and therefore it seems unnecessary to develop Community rules relating to this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2561/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: EU support for the slaughter of calves

An article published in July 1997 by An Bórd Bia, the Irish food board, states that over 2.3 million animals have been killed and taken out of the food chain in response to the BSE crisis. A total of 924 100 of these were calves less than 20 days old.

Under the EU's calf slaughter scheme, compensation payments have been paid to farmers for each male calf slaughtered.

Animal welfare and some veterinary groups, including the Irish Veterinary Union, have opposed the scheme, arguing that there was no evidence that it would help the eradication of BSE. These groups argued that the random nature of the scheme meant that most of the animals slaughtered would probably not be contaminated with BSE.

What evaluations has the Commission undertaken of the scheme so far? Has it any evidence to suggest that the scheme is beneficial in terms of eradicating BSE? In the absence of any such evidence, will it end the scheme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 October 1997)

According to information provided by Member States, up to mid-July 1997, the number of young bovines slaughtered under these measures was about 1 900 000 animals split in the following schemes:

- exceptional measures for Belgium, France and the Netherlands: 98 500 young veal calves;

- processing premium: 993 000 male calves;

- early marketing premium: 808 500 young veal calves.

Only the first scheme which operated between April and July 1996, could be related directly to BSE consumer fears. It had a beneficial effect on the markets concerned. The aim of the other two schemes is to reduce beef production, thus helping to restore the beef market balance, either by the exclusion of a certain number of new born animals from the food chain (the processing premium) or by a reduction of the final weight of commercial veal (the early marketing premium).

The first scheme is no longer in operation, and the other two schemes were foreseen for two years (December 1996 to December 1998).

The Commission has already presented to the Council an interim report ((COM(97) 165 final. )) concerning the processing premium and the early marketing premium. A second report is being prepared.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2336/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (7 July 1997)

Subject: Violation of individual liberties and citizens' rights through the implementation of the Schengen Agreement

In a resolution adopted on 11.3.1997 ((Minutes of 11.3.1997, Part II, p. 11. )), the European Parliament points out repeatedly that the implementation of the provisions of the Schengen Agreement violates individual and civil rights and restricts immigration and the freedom of movement within the Union of citizens of third countries who are legally resident in the European Union; it also notes that the implementation of the Schengen Information System infringes the individual liberties of citizens and their private lives and even results in the arrest of innocent people registered without any reason in the SIS. Furthermore, it is profoundly concerned at the fact that the implementation of this Agreement is not subject to any parliamentary or judicial control.

Will the Commission give its response to this European Parliament resolution and say what measures it intends to take to protect the individual and civil rights of citizens in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (22 October 1997)

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the observations made by the Commission during the debate on the draft Resolution on the functioning and future of Schengen at the March 1997 part-session of Parliament ((Report of Proceedings (March 1997). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: The sale of milk powder by the Swiss multinational Nestlè in third world countries

Recent statistics show that the Swiss multinational Nestlè is one of the leading agri-foodstuffs companies in the world, with 500 establishments in 66 countries, 200 000 employees and turnover of around LIT 70 000 billion per annum. Nestlè also sells 25% of its products to the southern hemisphere and controls between 35% and 50% of the world market in children's food. Moreover, it appears that, because of the use of rather unscrupulous marketing techniques, it has often breached the International Code drawn up by UNICEF and the World Health Organization which was adopted in 1981 by the World Health Assembly to protect children's health.

Recent WHO studies indeed contradict the information supplied by Nestlè concerning formula milk, and it is estimated that over 4000 children in the southern hemisphre could be saved every day from death caused by illness and malnutrition if they had been breastfed rather than being given powdered milk. Despite this, Nestlè appears to be continuing to breach the above-mentioned Code because it is unwilling to give up its share of the market in children's milk powder.

1. Can the Commission therefore state whether it is aware of this matter?

2. If so, have the Community institutions ever criticized the behaviour of Nestlè or other major companies in similar cases?

3. Can the Commission confirm the existence of WHO studies or reports into the adverse aspects of giving formula milk?

4. What instruments exist at Community level for monitoring the commercial activities of multinational giants such as Nestlè?

5. Can the Commission give a detailed viewpoint on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1997)

In general the superiority of breast-feeding is recognised and should be actively promoted in the Community. However when mothers do not breast-feed, or do so partially, there is a legitimate market for breast-milk substitutes (infant formulae). Community legislation is based on these principles.

Directive 91/321/EEC ((OJ L 175, 4.7.1991. )) as amended by Directive 96/4/EC on infant formulae and follow on formulae ((OJ L 49, 28.2.1996. )) regulates the compositional requirements and the marketing practices for these products within the Community. The application of these rules in the Member States is the responsibility of national authorities.

The Community, for obvious reasons, could not adopt extraterritorial legislation concerning the marketing practices in third countries for these products. A Council resolution on the marketing of breast-milk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers ((OJ C 172, 8.7.1992. )) encourages compliance with the World health organisation (WHO) code and offered to examine any complaints or criticisms with respect to the marketing practices of a manufacturer based in the Community that would be notified by the authorities of third countries. No such complaints or criticisms have been received to date.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2886/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Age discrimination in recruitment for the European institutions

Does the Commission know of any research which supports its claim that age discrimination is necessary when recruiting for the European institutions in order to overcome geographical imbalances in staff membership?

Would such imbalances be improved if the age restrictions did not apply to recruitment from peripheral areas of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (23 October 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1623/97 by Mr Smith ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 63. )) concerning the link between the application of age limits and maintaining a geographical balance for recruitment purposes.

The Commission is reviewing its policy on age limits for recruitment of officials.

The Board of Heads of Administration has held an initial discussion with a view to developing a common approach for the European institutions. Discussion will continue in this forum.

The question of age limits for recruitment will be discussed along with other matters in the context of the forthcoming entry into force of the new Article (Article 6a) inserted in the EC Treaty by the Amsterdam Treaty, prohibiting discrimination on various grounds, including age, and in the light of general practice in this field in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3314/97 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Grading of officials

Over the last few years both arms of the budgetary authority have endeavoured to stop spiralling staff costs.

It is all the more surprising therefore to hear reports that the Council has recently given officials a higher grade after passing a recruitment competition: thus a person recruited following an A7 competition might well be given the grade A5 in the Council. If he subsequently switched to the Commission, he would be recruited as an A5, while a colleague who had begun in the Commission as an A7 would remain at this grade. Will the Commission say:

1. Is it aware of such recruitment practices?

2. Does it consider that these practices are compatible with a coherent staff policy in the EU institutions?

3. What steps does it intend to take to remedy the situation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (4 December 1997)

In his question, the Honourable Member states that a successful candidate in an A7/6 competition was recruited to an A5 post in the Council. This practice is totally unknown in the Commission, which could never accept such a recruitment procedure. A successful candidate in a competition organised for a specific career bracket is always appointed to that career bracket and never to another.

What can happen, as might have been the case with regard to the recent A5/4 enlargement competition, is that a successful candidate in a A7/6 competition recruited by one institution could be eligible for a A5/4 competition organised by the same institution or another institution. An A7/6 official may have the requisite practical experience for that type of competition and his application could be lawfully accepted. If he is successful in that competition, the candidate can lawfully request to be recruited to an A5/4 post in his institution or in another institution.

If a Commission department has a vacant post and wishes to recruit the successful candidate to that post, the administration cannot refuse. Where the successful candidate in question is on a reserve list from a competition held by another institution, the 'appointment and transfer' procedure is applied. Although this procedure is well known to the administration, the Commission keeps a very close eye on it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2657/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Council (1 September 1997)

Subject: Cruelty in pigmeat production

There is a growing antipathy to the use of sow stalls and tethers by the pig industry among EU consumers because of the cramped conditions in which the animals are reared. For that reason, Tesco, a major supermarket chain in Britain, announced that it will introduce a ban on the sale of fresh pork reared by this system from 1 August next. The ban will be extended to other pigmeat products within a year.

Tesco's move has been taken seven years before an EU-wide ban on the system is due to take effect.

Given the growing trends among consumers, will the EU re-evaluate its ban with a view to introducing it sooner to reduce cruelty in the pig industry and restore consumer confidence in pigmeat products?

Answer (15 January 1998)

On 19 November 1991 the Council adopted Directive 91/630/EEC ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p.33. )) laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs.

Among other things, the Directive laid down requirements relating to the amount of unobstructed floor area which must be available to each pig reared in a group and provisions relating to the construction of rearing installations.

It also provided for a ban, as of 31 December 1995, on the construction or conversion of installations in which sows and gilts could be tethered.

Nevertheless, the competent authority could grant a dispensation to allow installations built prior to 1 January 1996 to be used for an additional temporary period (until 31 December 2005).

However, Article 6 of the Directive stipulates that: 'by 1 October 1997, the Commission shall submit to the Council a report, drawn up on the basis of an opinion from the Scientific Veterinary Committee, on the intensive pig-rearing system(s) which comply with the welfare requirements of pigs from the pathological, zootechnical, physiological and behavioural points of view and on the socio-economic implications of the different systems. The report shall particularly take into account the welfare of sows reared in varying degrees of confinement and in groups and shall be accompanied by appropriate proposals which take account of the conclusions of the report'.

The Council can assure the Honourable Member that, as soon as it has received the Commission report and any accompanying proposals, it will examine them with all the attention and speed necessary to enable it to act as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3385/97 by Fernando Moniz (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Textile and clothing industry in the EU

The employers' associations and trade unions of the textile and clothing industry have been expressing their concern over the future of the sector, especially in view of the process of gradual integration into the GATT/WTO rules.

The Commission and Parliament have shown increasing awareness of the importance of periodically assessing trends in the sector, as being vital for defining the outlines of any new action plans.

An important analysis of the textile and clothing industry, drawn up by DG III (Industrial Affairs), was forwarded some time ago to DG XII (Science and Technology). However, no decision has been taken on the matter, without any plausible reason being advanced.

Can the Commission explain the reasons for this delay? Can it also state when it foresees an end to the impasse thus created, which could prove damaging to workers and companies in the sector?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1997)

The Commission communication on the plan of action to increase the competitiveness of the European textile and clothing industry has been adopted and forwarded to Parliament ((COM(97) 454 final. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2834/97 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Protecting the Pego-Oliva marshes (Valencia - Spain)

Last year I tabled a question to the Commission (E-1387/96) ((OJ C 356, 25.11.1996, p. 33. )) on the Pego-Oliva marshes. On behalf of the Commission, Mrs Bjerregaard replied on 11 July 1996, stating that the Commission had approached the Spanish authorities for information on certain work, presumed illegal, carried out in the area, and had reminded them that, the marshes being a classified special protection area (SPA) under Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. )) (the 'birds' directive'), any plan or project likely to affect them must first be assessed (Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )) on habitats). Mrs Bjerregaard said that the Commission had also indicated its intention to suspend LIFE funding if the Spanish authorities failed to provide a satisfactory response.

1. Has the Commission obtained the information it requested from the Spanish authorities?

2. If so, does it consider the information to be satisfactory?

3. What is the present situation regarding this matter?

4. Can the Commission make the information available?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 October 1997)

1. The Commission is aware of what has been happening in the Pego-Oliva marshes. Conservation of this area is one of the objectives of Life project B4-3200/92/15183 (Primera y segunda fases del programa de acciones para la conservación de los Humedales de el Hondo de Elche y Marjal de Pego-Oliva, y creación de áreas de reserva para el samaruc, Valencia hispanica, en la Comunidad Valenciana, España). The Commission has written several times to the regional environmental administration of the Generalitat de Valencia, which is the project beneficiary. The replies it received having been incomplete, it wrote again in July 1997. To date, no reply has been received to this latest letter.

2. The Commission is only partly satisfied with the beneficiary's replies. According to the information in the Commission's possession, the main steps taken thus far have been a complaint lodged by the Director of the reserve against the Mayor of Pego for possible violation against natural resources and the environment and disturbance of public order, an order from the Consejería de medio ambiente freezing all agricultural activity in the marshes, and an order from the competent judge prohibiting all activity in the marshes and asking the civil guard to monitor them, and proceedings in respect of actual infringements.

3. and 4. Aware that legal action is under way in Spain, the Commission has decided to examine the case with the Spanish authorities at the next 'package' meeting on compliance with environment law and to visit the site this autumn to check on the impact of the legal action which has been undertaken and on the feasibility of further purchases of land under Life-Nature co-financing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3415/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (28 October 1997)

Subject: World trade and protection of animals

Article XX provides a series of grounds for trade restrictions, including protection of human and animal life and health and respect for general public morals.

1. How are these provisions to be interpreted? Can they be interpreted such that EU animal protection standards can be maintained or improved without objections?

2. How are the restrictive considerations actually determined? To what extent must restrictions on animal health be accepted and when is a restriction on trade permitted? Who decides what is in line with public morals, etc.?

3. To what extent is protection of the well-being of animals or prevention of psychological suffering, such as fear, taken into account?

4. Is it possible for an interpretation which satisfies animal protection considerations to be implemented at international level, or must the WTO provisions be made more definite?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3414/97, E-3415/97, E-3417/97 and E-3418/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2569/94 by Mrs Oddy ((OJ C 145, 12.6.1995. )).