ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4059/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Health effects of cramped seating on long-haul flights

Is the Commission aware that serious concerns are being raised about cramped seating on long-haul flights causing thrombosis to some passengers? Has there been any research conducted or gathered by the Commission on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 1999)

The Commission is aware of concerns expressed about the possible consequences for the health of certain air passengers through the risk of insufficient seat space in economy class. An increasing number of complaints from passengers has been received and several expert studies have been funded by the Commission in response to those concerns. Results received so far do not identify a clear need to impose a wider seat pitch. They do tend to demonstrate, however, that lengthening distance between seats increases the risk of injury in case of accident.

The Commission is conducting an inquiry on this matter within the relevant Joint aviation authorities (JAA) working group and will consider whether the results should lead to further specific initiatives which could ease discomfort whilst maintaining safety.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4022/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: EU-Switzerland negotiations

In view of the news which has recently been released concerning the stage reached in the EU-Switzerland negotiations on the application of the rules governing the single market (in particular, those relating to transport), and having regard to the importance of the free movement of workers, would the Commission say what progress has been made and what differences remain, with particular reference to social security and, especially, unemployment benefit?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 1999)

The negotiations between the Community and Switzerland have led to the conclusion of a draft agreement concerning freedom of movement of people. This draft agreement will considerably improve the rights of Union citizens working in Switzerland and will ultimately lead to full freedom of movement of workers as guaranteed between the Member States. However, during an interim period, some limitations will still be applicable.

In the field of social security, Union citizens will in general benefit from the same advantages as provided by Regulations (EEC) 1408/71 and No 574/72 (see proposal for a Council regulation (EC) 1408/71 as regards its extension to nationals of third countries(1)) as these Regulations will be incorporated in the agreement. Community rules regarding entitlement to unemployment benefits will also apply with only one exception during the interim period. For workers who have worked in Switzerland for less than one year, periods of employment in other Member States will not be aggregated to overcome the waiting period (six months) for entitlement to Swiss unemployment benefits.

(1) OJ C 6, 10.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3942/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: EMAS

At what stage is the revised sustainable management and audit scheme?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 1999)

On 30 October 1998, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation allowing participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS)(1) following a review of Council Regulation (EEC) 1836/93 of 29 June 1993 allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme(2).

The Community took the opportunity of this review pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) 1836/93 to carry out wide-ranging consultations with the various interested parties, in order to arrive at a balanced proposal of benefit both to the environment and the organisations eligible to participate in EMAS.

Among the new features of this proposal, the extension of the scope of the Regulation to all economic activities will increase coverage of environmental impacts, leading to an overall improvement in environmental performance. Organisations such as financial institutions or local authorities will thus have an effective tool at their disposal to manage their environmental effects, which can be just as significant as those encountered in industry.

Care has also been taken to ensure that EMAS is compatible with the international standard ISO 14001, compared with which, however, EMAS has added value. In addition to the internal management of environmental impacts in the framework of ISO 14001, EMAS requires organisations to improve their environmental performance and to inform the outside world of the progress made via an environmental statement validated by an independent party. This added value will enhance the registered organisations' credibility, in particular vis-à-vis the inspection authorities and the public.

The new proposal also aims to encourage the participation of organisations irrespective of their size. It is therefore planned to improve information to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to define support tools, to make verifiers more aware of the conditions under which SMEs operate and to encourage large firms to support their small-business suppliers in implementing EMAS.

Finally, the organisations registered in compliance with EMAS may use a logo to advertise their voluntary efforts to improve environmental performance. The conditions under which the logo may be used are narrowly defined in order to maintain a balance between communication and credibility, and in particular to avoid any confusion with a product label.

(1) OJ C 400, 22.12.1998.

(2) OJ L 168, 10.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2615/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Quarantine laws in the United Kingdom

1. Can the Commission confirm that the United Kingdom is at present the only EU country still to apply quarantine legislation to pets entering the country?

2. Can the Commission indicate whether these laws are in conformity with current European legislation in this field?

3. Does the Commission agree that the quarantine laws in the United Kingdom are very old-fashioned and cause animals unnecessary suffering?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2557/98 and E-2615/98 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

The conditions for intra-Community trade in dogs and cats are laid down by Article 10 (2) of Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1).

Derogating from and additionally to the provisions in this paragraph, for placing on the market in the United Kingdom and Ireland, dogs and cats must come from registered holdings where they have been confined since birth, must be properly identified, must be transported in recognized means of transport and the immune response to vaccination must be proven by serological testing.

Paragraph 4 of that article allows the United Kingdom and Ireland to retain national quarantine rules for those carnivores, primates, bats and other animals susceptible to rabies covered by Directive 92/65/EEC for which no guarantees can be given that since birth they never left their holding of origin.

The Commission is officially informed that the British government is currently looking at the import requirements and quarantine arrangements with a view to take account of the technical progress and the development of the disease in countries outside the United Kingdom. However, any new system ought to be at least as effective in maintaining rabies freedom of the country as the current quarantine system, and controls should be workable and enforceable.

The Commission actively supports Member States to eradicate this disease by large-scale oral vaccination of silvatic foxes. These programmes include financial contributions not only to the Member States, but also to continental neighbouring countries. This should help to protect the territories of Member States where rabies is successfully controlled or eradicated.

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3974/98

by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Areas eligible for Objective 2 funding

Against the backdrop of the future enlargement towards the East, the Structural Fund reform being implemented by the Commission and the reform of the French Government's regional aid measures will bring about major changes in the way European funds are allocated to various areas.

Given the Commission's desire to concentrate structural operations, some areas run the risk of not being declared eligible for the regional planning grant (PAT) by the French Government, which would decrease the likelihood of their being eligible for funding under the future Objective 2. This would lead to imbalances between regions and would be a severe blow to a pro-active regional planning policy.

Would the Commission not agree that it should increase the margin for manoeuvre by 2 % so as to enable areas not covered by regional aid measures to become eligible for Objective 2 funding?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 1999)

The communication from the Commission to the Member States on the links between regional and competition policy(1), adopted on 17 March 1998, called for consistency between the two policies to be reinforced. The Commission believes that national measures and Community structural measures should be directed at the regions and areas which are most in need.

It will be principally for each Member State to ensure consistency between the map of areas which are eligible under Objective 2 and the map of areas which qualify for national regional aid under Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission considers that the possibility of proposing, under Objective 2, areas which are not covered by the exceptions provided for in Article 92(3)(c) and containing overall not more than 2 % of the national population not covered by Objective 1 gives each Member State sufficient flexibility.

However, it should be borne in mind that this question is being discussed in the negotiations which are taking place on the legislation contained in the Agenda 2000 package. The final outcome will not be known until these negotiations have been concluded and the new regulations have been formally adopted.

(1) OJ C 90, 26.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Additional set-aside and sowing times in Finland

Finland has been experiencing very hard times for spring sowing. Because of the bad weather conditions it was not possible to cultivate the land even in June. The Commission's decision on the possibility of additional set-aside quotas for Finland has been postponed until the end of June. Farmers, however, need to decide whether to set land aside or sow their crops into the frosty and waterlogged land in the hope of subsidies. In Finland the farming conditions in spring are often relatively difficult and are not comparable to those in southern Europe.

Would it not be better for the time of sowing and, where appropriate, the need for additional set-aside, to be decided at national level rather than having to wait for the sometimes long-winded decisions of the EU? Decisions taken at national level might help speed up and simplify decisions on sowing and increase farmers' confidence in the EU.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Sowing times and additional set-aside are not related. The Community fixes a deadline by which producers have to adopt their cultivation plans. Producers have to submit aid applications based on those cultivation plans under the Integrated Administration and Control System for the compensatory payments scheme by 15 May at the latest. For Finland, this date has been put back until 15 June to take account of the country's climate.

If weather conditions prevent this date from being met, measures can be adopted to allow the amendment of aid applications. This was the case in Finland this spring and Commission Regulation (EC) 1552/98 of 17 July 1998 derogating from Regulation (EEC) 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the Integrated Administration and Control System for certain Community aid schemes(1) was adopted to remedy the situation by allowing areas declared as "arable crops" to be changed to "set-aside areas". Since the adoption of such decisions requires a request from the national authorities to the Commission, it is up to those authorities to weigh up the situation in good time. The Commission is prepared to respond at very short notice if such requests prove justified.

(1) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1652/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Renewal of the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement

Morocco has made public its intention not to renew the existing fisheries agreement with the European Union next year.

Should this prove to be the case, it would have serious implications for the activity of the small-scale Community fleet. The fleet based in the regions of Galicia, Andalusia and the Canary Islands would be particularly hard hit: the grave threat to its future exploitation of the fishing grounds around the Canary Islands and Western Sahara would in turn bring redundancies and damage the production sphere in the aforementioned areas of Spain already afflicted by high unemployment.

In this regard the Commission must play a prominent role in the negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco in order to prevent the fisheries agreement from being used as a bargaining counter on which the future of this important Community sector would hinge.

What is the Commission's view of Morocco's announcement not to renew the fisheries agreement with the EU?

What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to guarantee the future of the sector and of the small-scale European fleet which fishes in the fishing grounds around the Canary Islands and Western Sahara in the negotiations on a future fisheries agreement with Morocco?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of the statements by Morocco concerning non-renewal of the current fisheries agreement.

It will shortly engage in detailed discussions, both with the Member States and with Morocco, to identify various options for the future of fisheries relations with that country.

At the appropriate time the Commission will examine with the Member States what, if any, socio-economic initiatives it should take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3896/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: EU subsidies for exports of live cattle from the EU to third countries

Given that the protection of livestock must have priority over economic interests, why were exports of live cattle not excluded from the most recent 8 % increase in export refunds, which came into effect on 17.10.1998(1), and subsidies granted only to exports of meat?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 1999)

Export refunds on live cattle have been granted since the common market organisation for the beef sector was introduced in 1968 and there is a traditional export trade to certain countries. In 1997 live exports of adult animals accounted for some 8 % of total refund-aided exports for the sector of 1 050 000 tonnes (carcase weight).

Some countries for various reasons prefer to import live animals for slaughter afterwards. If the Community did not subsidise such exports it would lose the markets to other exporting countries. The Honourable Member is reminded that, following adoption of Council Regulation (EC) 2634/97 of 18 December 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(2), which makes payment of export refunds on live cattle conditional on compliance with the provisions on animal welfare during transport, Commission Regulation (EC) 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport(3), applicable since 1 September 1998, has introduced checking of all live cattle leaving Community territory plus targeted checks when cattle are unloaded in the country of destination.

The Commission has always tried to keep export refund levels for live cattle and for beef roughly parallel while taking into account the specific requirements of certain countries of destination and the Community market situation.

(1) O J L 281, 17.10.1998, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 356, 31.12.1997.

(3) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4045/98

by Nelly Maes (V) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Activities of the European information outlets financed under budget line B3-301

On 15 December 1998 Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control agreed to the transfer of appropriations amounting to ECU 3 million to budget line B3-301: Information outlets. During the 1998 financial year some ECU 13,5 million has been included in the budget under this item.

The three main objectives of this budget line are:

- to help finance information and documentation outlets for the public at large in collaboration with the national authorities;

- to help finance a total of 500 initiatives, including rural information forums, the European Documentation Centres, the Info Points, reference collections in national libraries and the forums for sustainable development;

- to finance information campaigns by the International Federation of Europe Houses (of which there are 100 throughout Europe).

1. Can the Commission provide a detailed breakdown of all initiatives financed in Belgian under this budget line, stating the persons and/or groups who have received financial aid, what was subsidised (leaflets, staff, information material, the policy areas covered) and the addresses where the partners subsidised carry out their activities?

2. Can the Commission provide a breakdown, if necessary through annual reports, of the activities carried out by these partners in Belgium in the last five years?

3. Can the Commission state whether it regularly evaluates the effectiveness of the activities subsidised? If so, can I see the evaluation reports?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3552/98

by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Council

(1 December 1998)

Subject: Child labour in subsidiaries of European companies in Turkey

Information has recently come to light about the appalling exploitation of children working in Turkish factories belonging to subsidiary companies of large Western (mainly European) multinationals. An Italian newspaper and magazine reported on specific cases of children working extremely long hours in factories in which Community companies have an interest.

Is the Council aware of this situation and does it intend to take any action given that child labour and the exploitation of minors is strictly prohibited in the European Union and that Parliament has adopted numerous resolutions on this issue?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

The existing agreements governing relations between the European Community and Turkey - namely, the Ankara Agreement of 1963, the Additional Protocols and the decisions of the Association Council - do not provide for cooperation on labour conditions in Turkey.

However, the Council is currently considering the implementation of a European strategy for Turkey. According to information supplied by the Commission, an exploratory meeting with the Turkish authorities could be proposed in the near future in order to discuss social matters, including fundamental social rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3176/98

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 October 1998)

Subject: Implementing the nitrate directive

Accurate observation of the nitrate content of surface and ground water is essential for the directive to be properly implemented.

1. Can the Commission say whether there is any legislation to indicate how and where the nitrate content in ground water must be measured, to comply with the provisions in Annex I of the directive?

2. Does the Commission think that measurement of the nitrate content is being carried out in a uniform way in all the EU Member States?

3. Can the Commission give an assurance that the measurements are providing research results that enable equivalent comparisons to be made, even between different kinds of soil?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Article 6 paragraph 2 of Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(1) stipulates that "the relevant methods of measurement set out in Annex IV shall be used". Annex IV provides that "nitrogen compounds shall be measured using the method described in Commission Directive 77/535/EEC of 22 June 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to methods of sampling and analysis for fertilisers(2), as amended by Directive 89/519/EEC(3)".

As far as the chemical analysis is concerned, the reference method is set out in Annex IV. The sampling however is not done in a uniform way. At present, the Commission is working on the development of monitoring guidelines pursuant to Article 5(6) and also on the reporting format pursuant to Article 10 in order that measurements are made in a more uniform way in the future, but bearing in mind the different environment conditions in the various regions of the Community. The proposals are likely to be presented to Member States during the first semester of 1999.

Article 1 stipulates the objective of the Directive is to reduce water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources and to prevent further such pollution. It is not linked to any specific kind of soil.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 213, 22.8.1977.

(3) OJ L 265, 12.9.1989.