ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0524/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (20 February 1997)

Subject: Recommendation on child care

When will the Commission produce its overall report on the implementation of the recommendation on child care by the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1997)

In March 1995, the Commission wrote to all Member States with a questionnaire which asked for details of the measures they had taken to implement the 1992 Council recommendation on childcare. To date, the Commission has received replies from 13 Member States. Two responses are still outstanding. The level of information on services for young children is limited in many Member States, and the Commission has been disappointed by the incomplete response on this important issue. However, the Commission is finalising a draft report. It will be published in the coming months.

In the meantime the Honourable Member may wish to note that a guide to implementing the recommendation on childcare was published earlier this month. Its title is 'Work and childcare: a guide to good practice', and it is available as part of the social Europe series of publications.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0475/97 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Tin

According to information from information and research centres on tin in Brussels and London, this metal appears not to produce the harmful effects on health associated with other metals such as lead, cadmium or mercury.

Is there a Commission department which could deliver an official opinion on the claims of these centres?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1997)

There are two tin information and research centres in the Community: the Tin Information Centre in Brussels and the International Tin Research Institute in Uxbridge in the United Kingdom. The Commission is not fully acquainted with these establishments but does have occasional contact with them. Their working methods and the conclusions they publish are not always the same as those of the Commission.

It is difficult to compare the dangerous properties of different metals and their compounds such as, for instance, toxicity for reproduction and acute toxicity. Effects on health must be studied on a case by case basis.

Tin metal is not classified as dangerous in Directive 67/548/EEC on the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances ((OJ 196, 16.8.1967. )), nor are lead metal or cadmium metal. However, stannic chloride, and a whole range of organic tin compounds are classified as dangerous in the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0487/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Marketing of Canary Islands tomatoes in France

Can the Commission confirm whether Canary Islands tomatoes are subject in France to a levy similar to that applied to non-Community products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 March 1997)

The information in possession of the Commission does not confirm that a customs duty similar to that applied to non-Community products is levied in France on tomatoes produced in the Canary Islands.

In a recent communication the French authorities informed the Commission about the formal requirements for the entry into their territory of tomatoes originating in the Canary Islands. The same arrangements are applicable to the rest of the transactions concerning products from the Canary Islands and from the French overseas departments due to the fact that they are territories with a different fiscal status. The arrangements described are in line with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0531/97 by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) to the Commission (20 February 1997)

Subject: Spanish government aid to Tunisia

On 26 January 1997 a Spanish newspaper published a report according to which the Spanish Government would not make its aid to Tunisia conditional upon respect for human rights by that country.

In view of Articles B, F, J and J.1 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 130u, 228 and 238 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities, and also the efforts made by the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament to ensure that the democracy clause is systematically included in agreements concluded with third countries, including Euro-Mediterranean agreements (of which Tunisia is a signatory), can the government of an EU Member State sacrifice respect for human rights to further its own national interest and not make economic cooperation with a country conditional upon respect for human rights in that country?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)

The Commission is not in possession of the information referred to by the Honourable Member.

Member States may conclude economic cooperation agreements with third countries provided they are not at variance with Community policies in that field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0557/97 by David Morris (PSE) to the Commission (24 February 1997)

Subject: Subsidized EU exports of beef to South Africa

Subsidized EU exports of beef to South Africa have increased significantly in the last three years. This has damaged the meat industries of neighbouring countries, especially Botswana and Namibia, which traditionally supplied beef to South Africa. When this problem was raised at the November Council of Agriculture Ministers, Commissioner Fischler agreed 'to keep a watchful eye on developments'.

Has he now seen enough to recognize the damage that subsidized EU export of beef is inflicting on these Southern African countries?

What action does the Commission intend to take to rectify the present unfair situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 March 1997)

In August 1996, the South African authorities wrote to the Commission alleging that subsidised imports of beef and pork from the Community were posing a threat to the South African meat industry and were affecting other developing countries in the Southern African region that export to the South African meat market. They also alleged that meat imports from the Community were being sold at prices well below local price levels. They requested a decrease in the level of export refunds to encourage South African importers to source more meat in neighbouring countries.

In its response, the Commission highlighted the commitments undertaken by those who subscribed to the conclusions of the Uruguay Round. It reminded South Africa that all contracting parties to the agreement gave a range of undertakings and, in the field of agriculture, these included accepting domestic support, market access and export subsidies. The Commission emphasised that it had no wish to undercut local prices and requested that South Africa supply detailed information to support its claim so that the Commission could act accordingly. Unfortunately, the South African authorities did not reply to this request.

Nevertheless, in an effort to improve the situation concerning the meat trade within the Southern African development community the Commission decided with effect from 1 February 1997 for the purposes of export refunds for beef and veal to group together the African countries within the same geographical zone. The new measures mean a reduction of approximately 8.5% in the level of export refunds for certain cuts of boneless meat exported from the Community to the regions of Eastern and Southern Africa. These measures are additional to the 10% global reduction in the level of refunds in the meat sector, for exports to all destinations, which took effect from 15 January 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0917/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Metro systems

Which cities in Europe have metro systems and which of them are privatized?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1997)

The following European cities have metro systems ((Source: Jane's Urban Transport Systems. Edition 1996/1997. )):

>TABLE>

The Commission is advised that all of these systems are in public ownership.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0923/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: The EDF and the fisheries agreement with Sierra Leone

Can the Commission say what appropriations were paid to Sierra Leone under the EDF in 1995 and 1996 to finance the development of the national fisheries sector, and can it list the specific products for which this aid was used?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0923/97, E-0924/97, E-0925/97, E-0926/97, E-0927/97, E-0928/97, E-0929/97, E-0930/97, E-0931/97, E-0932/97, E-0933/97 and E-0934/97 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1997)

In reply to questions on allocations and specific projects to develop the fisheries sector in 12 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, a document listing fisheries projects in developing countries that have received EC aid has been sent to the Honourable Member and lodged with Parliament's General Secretariat.

The document comprises tables giving detailed information including the types of project, their objectives, the recipients and the Community contribution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0540/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (21 February 1997)

Subject: Inspections of fish-processing undertakings pursuant to Directive 91/493/EEC

EU inspectors currently make periodic inspections of fish-processing undertakings in various Member States and insist on full compliance with a number of technical health requirements laid down in Directive 91/493/EEC ((OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 15. )), which entered into force in its entirety on 31 December 1995.

1. Are there any plans to make such inspections in the near future of fish-processing undertakings in Morocco, to ensure that they comply with all the points laid down in the directive?

2. What is meant by the statement, in your reply to my Written Question E-3224/96 of 16 January 1997 ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997, p. 51. )), that the situation observed in these undertakings was 'normal'? Does it mean that they met all the requirements laid down in the conditions stipulated in the directive?

3. Will inspections be carried out this year of all undertakings producing processed tuna, sardine and mackerel, as well as anchovy semi-preserves in oil, which are allowed access to to the Community market pursuant to the Commission decision of 10 February 1995?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1997)

1. Three inspection visits have already been made to Morocco for fish products, the latest in October 1996, and information was passed on to the Honourable Member in the reply to Written Question E-3224/96.

2. By a 'normal' situation as reported in that reply the Commission meant that observations were made but were not such as to warrant withdrawal of approval for export to the Community or similar measures to protect the health of European consumers.

3. It is not planned to inspect in Morocco in 1997 all tuna, sardine and mackerel canneries and all establishments preparing anchovy semi-preserves. For all products together the Commission has ten inspectors to visit more than 90 000 establishments in 167 third countries. In both the Member States and third countries exporting fish products to the Community the number of establishments inspected is limited but large enough to be representative.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0275/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: Agreements with third countries covering canned fish

The EU is currently negotiating or re-negotiating a series of agreements with third countries covering canned fish.

Will the Commission say what stage has been reached in these negotiations with each of the countries concerned?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)

At present only the Association Agreement with Morocco contains provisions on canned fish but under the Generalized Scheme of Preferences the Community unilaterally grants developing countries, including Morocco, preferential customs duty reductions on a number of fish preparations and preserves. The agreements in force are not being renegotiated at the moment.

Exploratory talks are currently being held with certain central and eastern European countries under the Europe Agreements. The possible results might include a limitation in the quantities of canned fish producers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0234/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council (13 February 1997)

Subject: Transnational companies operating in developing countries in conflict

Does the Council consider that it would be appropriate to devise a code of conduct for the operation of transnational companies in developing countries where there is conflict?

Does the Presidency consider that the position of the Dutch brewery Amstel in Burundi is a case in point, since 80% of the government revenues are derived from this company?

Answer (16 May 1997)

The specific matter raised by the Honourable Member, of devising a code of conduct for the operation of transnational companies in developing countries where there is conflict, has never been formally referred to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0988/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (17 March 1997)

Subject: EAGGF-Guarantee Fund in Sweden

Can the Commission specify how much funding Sweden received in total from the EAGGF-Guarantee Fund in 1996, giving a breakdown

per chapter (arable crops, sugar, fibre plants and silkworms, fruit and vegetables, other plant sectors or products, the vine-growing sector, tobacco, milk and milk products, beef and veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat, other animal product aid measures, refunds on processed agricultural products, refunds in connection with EU food aid, the distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons in the Community, accompanying measures, rural development measures related to the operation of markets, other measures, income aid and the European Fisheries Guarantee Fund), and

per procedure (export refunds, compensatory pricing aid, 'area' aid, aid per head of stock, guidance premiums, private storage aid, withdrawal and similar operations, compensatory amounts, accompanying measures for reform of the CAP and public storage expenditure)?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0974/97, E-0975/97, E-0976/97, E-0977/97, E-0978/97, E-0979/97, E-0980/97, E-0981/97, E-0982/97, E-0983/97, E-0984/97, E-0985/97, E-0986/97, E-0987/97 and E-0988/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

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-0817/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies to associations, NGOs and various other bodies

With regard to heading B7-320 (European programme for reconstruction and development in South Africa), can the Commission provide a complete list of associations, NGOs and other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies and the exact amount of these subsidies for the last completed budgetary year, i.e. 1996?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

In 1996 four new commitments were made from budget line B 7-3200 (European programme for reconstruction and development in South Africa, formerly B 7-5070) for projects in which South African non governmental organisations (NGOs) were involved.

>TABLE>

In addition, a large number of smaller projects with South African NGOs have been implemented in 1996 under financial commitments made in the previous years, notably the micro-projects programme in Eastern Cape Province (global commitment of 12.6 mecu opened in 1995), the small projects programmes run through the Kagiso trust and the South African council of churches (4.7 mecu opened in 1994) and a new NGO support programme contracted with the Transitional national development trust (15 mecu opened in 1995).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (3 February 1997)

Subject: EIB funding for the 'Roma 2000' project

In an overview of recent EIB assistance to Italy, Agence Europe bulletin No 6884, dated 1 January 1997, reported that the EIB would be contributing LIT 1 400 billion for an investment project in the city of Rome, known as the 'Roma 2000' project. The project is to comprise a range of measures, not least in anticipation of the celebrations to mark the year 2000, which are expected to have a strong impact on the city.

Can the Commission confirm the above report and give further details of the investment project (partners involved apart from the EIB, activities to be undertaken, sites to receive assistance, total amount of investment, and so forth)?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (21 March 1997)

On 18 December 1996 the European Investment Bank (EIB) decided to provide financing of LIT 1 400 billion (using as intermediaries the following banks: IMI, Mediobanca, Banco di Roma, BNL, Crediop and SBC Warburg) to the Lazio region and the Rome municipality in respect of the 'Roma 2000 framework agreement' project for the building of transport and urban amenities in the Lazio region. Apart from a small contribution expected from other sources, the entire project will be financed by loans contracted by the Italian State under the specific Rome 2000 Decree-Law. The EIB loan accounts for a major share of those loans.

The 500 or so works to be financed are part of a scheme of coordinated measures for improving tourism facilities, modernizing the urban transport network, including the underground, helping to preserve and capitalize on the local heritage and protecting the environment (water and waste management).

EIB assistance is justified in the light of Article 198e(c) of the EC Treaty, in particular in view of the major contribution the project will make to improving the urban environment in one of Europe's major capitals, and in view of the knock-on effects it will have on economic activity in the Lazio region.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1131/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (24 March 1997)

Subject: Tourism and people with disabilities

As the tourist season starts, what steps is the Commission taking to facilitate the mobility of people with disabilities in tourist resorts in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1997)

The Commission has established the European experts group 'Independent living - tourism for all'. Work has focused on the problem of accessibility in tourism facilities, the training of tourism professionals catering for tourists with disabilities, and the provision of information. A draft voluntary accessibility standard, which could be used throughout Europe, is currently under discussion.

In the former action plan to assist tourism (1993-1995) ((Council Decision 92/421/EC - OJ L 231, 13.8.1992. )) the need for information which would facilitate access to tourism, and which could be made available to both tourism professionals and disabled people, lead to research being undertaken with a view to publication of a handbook for tourism professionals, as well as travel guides for disabled tourists. The handbook has recently been published and a copy is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0515/97 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council (19 February 1997)

Subject: Human rights violations in United Kingdom prisons

The conditions in which Irish political prisoners are held in UK prisons give serious cause for concern: four Irish prisoners on remand in the Belmarsh high-security prison were brutally beaten and threatened by prison guards because they refused to submit to an anal search, a humiliating and inhuman practice which was introduced in September as part of the new prison code applying to Irish prisoners.

Another Irish prisoner, Paul Magee, was subjected to the same treatment for refusing to undergo an anal search, and has not been allowed to see his wife and children since August 1994.

1. Would the Council not agree that these infringements of human rights on the part of the UK prison service should be condemned in the strongest terms?

2. What urgent measures does it intend to take with a view to putting an end to such practices?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0515/97, E-0630/97, E-1147/97 and E-1148/97 (27 May 1997)

The conditions in which prisoners are held in Member States' prisons are within the responsibility of the appropriate authorities of the Member States. The authorities of the Member State referred to in these questions have rejected entirely the allegations made. The Council recalls that all Member States are parties to the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and all Member States are parties to the European Convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of 26 November 1987.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0039/97 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (22 January 1997)

Subject: Restrictions on purchase of Belgian treasury bonds by residents of Belgium

Is the Commission aware that, since 28 February 1996, the Belgian Treasury has been issuing government bonds (with a five-year maturity) with a fixed interest rate in American dollars, with the restriction that residents of Belgium are not permitted to subscribe for them?

Does the Commission recall that it previously instituted proceedings against Belgium pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty because in 1994 the Belgian State imposed a similar restriction on residents of Belgium in connection with a bond issue in German marks, which constituted a violation of Community law? Does the Commission agree that, in restricting the right of residents of Belgium to purchase government bonds, the Belgian State is violating Community law, irrespective of the currency in which the bonds are being issued?

If so, will the Commission urge the Belgian authorities to terminate immediately this unlawful and inadmissible conduct, in view, inter alia, of the fact that in 1995 they received a formal notification concerning a similar violation of Community law?

If not, can the Commission explain why it is permitting the Belgian State to violate Community law by retaining the restrictions on the right of residents of Belgium to purchase Treasury Eurobonds, despite the Commission's formal notice of complaint in 1995 in connection with proceedings pursuant to Article 169?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)

The Commission is aware of the restrictions imposed by Belgian law on residents (except financial institutions) of Belgium wishing to subscribe to bonds in Deutsche Mark and, subsequently, in dollars, issued abroad by the Belgian Treasury. Such restrictions are incompatible with Community law on the free movement of capital and the Commission has initiated action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty in order to obtain their elimination.

In their reply, the Belgian authorities based the imposition of the restrictions on the need to ensure that residents of Belgium, subject to a withholding tax on interest income, do not escape the payment of tax by subscribing to the issues under question which were destined for investors not subject to withholding tax. They claimed, also, that the provisions in question are compatible with Article 73d, 1(a) of the EC Treaty which allows differential tax treatment of taxpayers in connection with their place of residence or place of investment.

The Commission considered the explanation by the Belgian authorities was not satisfactory, since the legitimate concern to ensure that no tax evasion takes place could be met by other means (e.g. through a declaration system) and not by measures restricting the free movement of capital. The Commission will therefore deliver to Belgium a reasoned opinion in the context of the procedure under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.