ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2681/01

by Gerard Collins (UEN) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Premature Zinc Risk Assessment timetable

The Commission has been due to hold final in-depth discussions in relation to the risk assessment for zinc and other zinc substances at Technical Meeting 3 from 17 to 21 September, despite the fact that many significant unresolved issues remain.

The premature closing-off of the draft Risk Assessment Report (RAR) means that potentially important research conducted by the industry may not be taken into account. This could mean that Parliament will be considering legislation which is flawed.

Will the Commission explain why discussions on the zinc dossiers could be concluded without taking into account all relevant and new research and thereby ensuring that a risk assessment in this field is based on the best available scientific knowledge?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2082/01, E-2127/01, E-2348/01 and P-2681/01given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The six zinc compounds undergoing risk assessment following Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, were prioritised on 27 September 1995. The first draft risk assessment reports (RAR) were submitted by the Dutch authorities, acting as Member State Rapporteur, to the Community Technical Meeting in December 1999. Over the last decade, extensive discussions between the Dutch Institute Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM) acting as Rapporteur and zinc industry have taken place, and the output has been considered in the reports.

In comparison with other priority substances assessed under the Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, the procedure for completing the risk assessment for the six zinc compounds is not in anyway accelerated and there has never been the intention to close the discussions without taking into account ongoing research that could affect the conclusions.

At the Technical Meeting in September 2001, after an extensive discussion on the new draft reports, Member States experts agreed that especially on the issue of the emissions from zinc to soil and the bioavailability of this released zinc in the soil, specific information needs could be identified that might affect some of the conclusions regarding the risks of this substance. Therefore, in line with the usual procedure under this Regulation, the meeting agreed on a conclusion (i) there is a need for further information and/or testing, and agreed on a deadline of 18 months from September 2001 to obtain this information. After this deadline the Member State Rapporteur will incorporate the new results in the final RAR. These results and the final part of the report will then be discussed and concluded upon by the Technical Meeting.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2593/01

by Mario Borghezio (TDI) to the Council

(27 September 2001)

Subject: European checks on irregularities in the issuing of visas and residence permits in Italy

Investigations which are currently taking place in Italy, on the initiative of various judicial bodies, have revealed large-scale trafficking in visas and residence permits issued illegally by Italian diplomatic and consular offices in many countries around the world.

The investigations have shown that this traffic involves not only Italian and other Mafia organisations, but also a number of Islamic terrorist networks.

What practical measures are to be taken as a matter of urgency at European level in order to introduce an effective system of controls aimed at preventing immigrants who have entered the Schengen area on the basis of irregular documents from travelling around and remaining in the EU?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

One of the priorities of the Belgian Presidency is to step up the fight against document fraud, in particular by means of provisions aimed at improving local consular cooperation. Following the events of 11 September 2001, the Extraordinary Council meeting (Justice, Home Affairs and Civil Protection) held on 20 September 2001 identified over thirty measures to combat terrorism. These measures, which concern inter alia judicial and police cooperation, will also serve to speed up the process of creating an area of freedom, security and justice. In relation to border controls, the Council has invited the competent authorities of the Member States to strengthen controls at external borders and has requested the Police Chiefs Task Force to examine without delay procedures for achieving this aim and

report back to the December Council, and the Member States to apply procedures for the issue of visas with maximum rigour and to this end step up local consular cooperation. The Council has also invited the Commission to submit proposals for establishing a network for information exchanges concerning the visas issued. The Commission has confirmed that it will submit such a proposal, as well as proposals to reinforce the security features of visas modifying the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas currently under examination in the Council.

Council bodies are also examining the possibility of establishing common visa issuing offices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2492/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council

(14 September 2001)

Subject: Corruption

Would the Council outline what steps it has taken to implement the commitment made at the Africa-Europe Cairo Summit, in April 2000, to take necessary measures to combat corruption and to ensure that illegally acquired public moneys lodged in foreign bank accounts are investigated and returned to the countries of origin?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

The fight against corruption and the promotion of good governance constitute fundamental components of the Union's policy vis-à-vis its partners in Africa and elsewhere in the world. That policy is implemented in particular through a number of agreements which the Union has concluded with third countries, including the Cotonou Agreement with the ACP countries and through specific assistance programmes financed by the Community aimed at strengthening the institutional capacities of the countries concerned.

As regards the question of illegally acquired public funds lodged in foreign banks, the Council gives a reminder that the commitments entered into at the Africa-Europe Summit held in Cairo in April 2000 concern not only the institutions which took part in that summit but also the governments of states represented at it. Therefore, taking account of the nature of the questions to be resolved, the Council considers that at this stage bilateral cooperation between the States concerned seems to be the most promising manner of tackling specific problems which may arise in this context.

Moreover, the Council draws attention to the fact that the EU-Africa Ministerial Conference in Brussels on 11 October 2001 will review progress reached in the discussions on all questions covered by the Cairo Plan of Action, including those raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1559/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Observer status for Taiwan at the World Health Organisation

Six United Nations Member States El Salvador, Honduras, Palau, Panama, São Tomé and Príncipe and Senegal have written to the WHO to request observer status for Taiwan at that organisation. On 24 April, the US House of Representatives adopted a resolution calling on Secretary of State Collin Powell to support this move to obtain observer status for Taiwan at the WHO. The WHO's Executive Board is due to consider the request at the nine-day meeting that will open next week in Geneva.

Does the Council intend to support this initiative to obtain observer status for Taiwan at the WHO? If so, what steps does the Council intend to take to actively support this legitimate request? More generally, does the Council agree that the Union ought to take other initiatives to ensure that Taiwan can obtain observer status at least at all the international organisations?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

The Council did not support Taiwan's application for observer status at the WHO. While the Council would welcome a greater exchange of information between the WHO and Taiwan, it would not support the granting of a status to Taiwan in this or any other UN organisation which was inconsistent with its commitment to the principle of One China or the rules and regulations governing observer status in that organisation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2440/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Research into slurry separation and urban sludge treatment plants

Intensive stockfarming in the EU causes a wide range of environmental problems, in particular pollution of ground water, lakes, rivers and the sea.

These problems can be resolved through the use of new technology, which can undoubtedly be improved and made cheaper by intensifying research.

Will the Commission say what research projects in respect of slurry separation plants, biogas plants and other urban sludge hygienisation plants are receiving EU support, and what results have been achieved?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2001)

The research projects in respect to farm livestock slurries were dealing intensively with anaerobic digestion processes during the 70's and 80's. At present these improved techniques, combined with biogas production and sustainable use, are considered mature and should integrate technical, economic and regulatory considerations.

The strategies, technologies and management practises for sewage sludge are addressed specifically by a priority of the Community's Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD) (FP5) under the Environment Sustainable Development research programme (EESD), Key action Waste management and water quality (KA1). The research projects should focus on minimisation of sludge production and improvement of their quality by pollutants identification and interception at their source. The expected results will allow a safety and publicly acceptable targeted use in agriculture.

Selected research projects on this subject are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliaments's Secretariat.

The results of completed projects and additional information on these projects can be found on the Cordis database: http://dbs.cordis.lu/search/en/simple/EN_PROJ_simple.html and http://www.ad-nett.org.

The LIFE-Environment programme, examples of selected and supported demonstration activities on the subject are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Additional information on LIFE projects supported by the DG Environment can be obtained from http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/life/home.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2435/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Subject: Veterinary checks at external borders for foot and mouth disease

It is generally assumed that the illegal import of meat into the United Kingdom from a country outside the EU was the cause of the recent outbreaks of mouth disease, in the UK and in other EU Member States.

Can the Commission say what measures it has taken together with the Member States to strengthen checks at external frontiers and what the differences are compared with the situation before the wave of recent outbreaks?

If the answer to the above question is yes, can the Commission say how much the relevant measures have cost and who is meeting these costs?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2001)

A very comprehensive set of Community legislation regulates the imports of live animals and animal products into the Community.

It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that this legislation is properly enforced and that only animals, products and food corresponding to Community standards are imported.

The Commission has the duty to verify the proper implementation of this legislation. In this regard, in recent years the Commission has been paying particular attention to the functioning of the Community Border Inspection Posts in the Member States.

Inspections have been carried out regularly by the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) in recent times, and further missions will be carried out, within the framework of Commission Decision 97/778/EC of 22 July 1997 drawing up a list of border inspection posts (BIPs) agreed for veterinary checks on products and animals from third countries, laying down detailed rules concerning the checks to be carried out by the experts of the Commission and repealing Decision 96/742/EC(1).

The Parliament is systematically informed on the FVO mission reports and on the corrective actions, which are required to be carried out by the Member States whenever shortcomings in the implementation of Community legislation are detected.

The Commission is aware that the current foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak requires a review of the measures, which are necessary to prevent disease agents such as FMD virus entering the Community and to better control such diseases. In this framework, the Commission is already carrying out a review of the needs for a more detailed legislation on the controls at Community borders, together with Member States experts.

Member States have been reminded about their responsibilities to ensure that controls at Community borders are properly carried out.

However, at this stage the Commission is not in a position to draw any final conclusion on the strengthening of the controls at Community borders by the Member States and on their cost.

(1) OJ L 315, 19.11.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1881/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Portugal)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Portugal have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Portugal have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1832/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(22 June 2001)

Subject: Serb authorities' embargo on Jehovah's Witnesses' educational material

By decision of 9 April, the Federal Minister for Home Affairs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), Zoran Zivkovic, refused entry onto Serbian territory of a range of publications by Jehovah's Witnesses on the grounds that they would have a negative impact on children and young people. In the decision the minister explains that the reason for the ban on the importation of these publications is that judging from the number of copies and the content of the text, it is clear that they are intended not to meet the requirements of the current members of the community of Jehovah's Witnesses, but rather for specific purposes of proselytisation.

The specific nature of the pernicious influence of the forbidden texts on young people is unclear, given that the minister does not cite any significant passages to back up his accusation, as the law requires. As the reason for the ban is solely the quantity of material, it violates the very constitutional principles of the FRY, as well as the general principles of law.

What measures has the Commission taken, or will it take, to inform the authorities of Belgrade that such procedures are incompatible with the general principles of law and, more specifically, with freedom of thought, expression and religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission understands that, under a law dating from 1974, permission for imports of foreign publications is required, on a case by case basis, from the Federal Ministry of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Commission's enquiries indicate that the FRY authorities have not banned the publication in question, but have so far declined to authorise the import of this consignment in view of the very large quantity envisaged. The Commission understands that the matter is still under consideration.

The Commission is in regular contact with the FRY authorities about the reform of laws and procedures in many areas, including this one. The Council of Europe is providing advice as to European norms and practices.

The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of democratic reforms in the FRY closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(21 September 2001)

Subject: The Alqueva dam project (Portugal)

Has the Commission investigated whether the construction of the Alqueva dam is in conformity with the provisions of the Habitat Directive, and in particular with its effect on the Iberian Lynx as a protected species under priority grade annexe II of this Directive?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

In 1994-1995 the Commission part-financed environmental impact assessment (EIA) studies on the Alqueva dam project in the light of Community environmental legislation applicable to this type of project.

In the follow-up to those studies, the Portuguese authorities drew up an environmental management plan for the overall area affected by the project; the plan makes provision for a large number of measures to alleviate and compensate for that impact. The Commission is keeping a close eye on the way those measures are being implemented, as implementation is one of the conditions for Community part-financing. To that end it is currently analysing additional information received from the Portuguese on implementation of the measures.

Lastly, alongside the EIA of the project as a whole, the environmental effects of each individual project (minor dams, connection tunnels and irrigation systems) will be assessed separately having regard to the conservation of areas included in the Natura 2000 network and, where applicable, in the light of the principles laid down in Articles 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1). The Iberian lynx is listed in Annex IV to that Directive and is therefore protected under the arrangements laid down in Article 12 thereof.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2934/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: CE marking on torture instruments

Amnesty International reports that electric shock and stun gun devices are being exported from the EU and advertised in Taiwan as having a European guarantee of 2 years. The devices also display the CE standard mark.

Can the Commission take action to prevent the use of this CE mark to help promote the sales of weapons used to torture or ill-treat people in many countries in the world, or is the European Union powerless to prevent this perversion of its quality mark?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2934/01, E-2965/01, P-3012/01, E-3108/01 and E-3191/01given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Honourable Members are referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question P-2783/01 from Mr Ford(1).

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 209.