ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0833/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 March 2001)

Subject: Safety standards on passenger ships

1. Is the Commission satisfied with the current state of implementation and application in the Member States, and in Greece in particular of existing legislative requirements for safety standards on passenger ships?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that its forthcoming proposal on maritime safety for passengers will be swiftly and effectively implemented and applied?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2001)

Over the last decade, the Community has adopted a number of important measures relating to the safety of passenger vessels and of their passengers. More specifically, the following measures, which establish operational and technical standards for roll on, roll off (ro-ro) ferry and high speed crafts operating in the Community, are presently in force: Council Regulation (EC) 3051/95 of 8 December 1995 on the safety management of ro-ro passenger ferries(1), Council Directive 1998/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships(2), Council Directive 1998/41/EC of 18 June 1998, on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships operating to or from ports of the Member States(3) and Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high speed passenger craft services(4).

In relation to the application of the above instruments, the Commission has to recognise that some problems still exist. Therefore the Commission has initiated legal proceedings against a number of Member States in cases of non-communication of the national transposition measures and of non-compliance with the Community requirements laid down therein. Since the Honourable Member expressed particular concern about Greece the Commission can confirm that with the exception of Directive 1999/35/EC, which had a transposition deadline of 1 December 2000, all other instruments have been fully transposed by Greece.

Indeed, according to the Working Programme for this year, the Commission will present towards the end of 2001 its new proposal for higher safety standards in the field of passenger vessels. The Commission will seek to co-operate closely with the Council Presidency to give this proposal the high priority it deserves.

The Commission wishes also to stress the relevance of its recent proposal for the establishment of a European Maritime Safety Agency(5), which will have among its tasks to assist the Commission in the control of the application of maritime safety legislation by Member States. With the establishment of this Agency, the effective application of existing and future instruments on the safety of passenger vessels will be monitored much more closely than is presently possible.

(1) OJ L 320, 30.12.1995.

(2) OJ L 144, 15.5.1998.

(3) OJ L 188, 2.7.1998.

(4) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999.

(5) COM(2000) 802 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1794/01

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2001)

Subject: Incorrect implementation of Directive 92/46/EEC in Denmark

Further to my Question No H-0364/01(1) concerning the incorrect implementation of Directive 92/46/EEC(2) in Denmark, tabled for Question Time at Parliament's part-session in May 2001 in Strasbourg, I would ask the following supplementary question.

Article 4 of Directive 92/46/EEC lays down the Community health provisions governing the production and marketing of raw milk for direct consumption.

Is it the Commission's view that Article 4 also lays down the Community health provisions governing the production and marketing of milk-based products derived from raw milk, or is it the Commission's view that Article 4 has a bearing on the interpretation of the health provisions governing the production and marketing of milk-based products derived from raw milk contained in Article 7 of Directive 92/46/EEC?

If it is not the Commission's view that Article 4 has a bearing on the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 92/46/EEC, can the Commission explain why it has not ensured that Denmark has correctly implemented Directive 92/46/EEC?

(1) Written answer of 15 May 2001.

(2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Article 4 of Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products actually refers only to the placing on the market of raw milk for human consumption.

Article 7 of the same Directive lays down the conditions for the production and placing on the market of milk-based products.

Under the terms of Article 7 (A. 9), milk-based products must have undergone heat treatment during the manufacturing process or be made from products that have undergone heat treatment or involve hygiene specifications that are sufficient to meet the guaranteed hygiene criteria for all finished products.

The Commission interprets this provision to mean that it is the responsibility of the Member State in which the product is manufactured to decide whether hygiene specifications are sufficient.

It follows from this that if Denmark concludes that the use of raw milk does not offer sufficient hygiene guarantees, it is entitled to prohibit the production and placing on the market of milk-based products manufactured in its territory that have not undergone heat treatment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0635/01

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Aid for Armenia

According to figures concerning American aid for Armenia published in the Washington Post, per capita aid to Armenia over the last year amounted to USD 42, which is one of the highest levels of American aid to third countries. This aid takes a wide variety of forms, notably housing repairs, a contribution towards antiseismic protection for buildings, the renovation of schools, the construction of water supply networks, etc.

Given that the Transcaucasian countries are priority countries for the European Union, will the Council say:

1. Does Armenia receive aid under the EU's external aid programme?

2. What levels of aid will it be proposing for Armenia?

3. What aid sectors does it intend to cover?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

Armenia receives considerable assistance from a number of international donor organisations. The United States is the largest donor with a USAID assistance budget in 1999 of USD 90 Million with a main focus of employment creation. TACIS (the EU programme) is among the largest providers of technical assistance in addition to EU Member States and UN agencies. Armenia has also received considerable international support in various forms from the Armenian Diaspora.

From 1996 to 2000, the Community aid programme amounted to 129 million ( 83 million of which disbursed).

The current TACIS Action programme concentrates on the following priority areas:

- Support for institutional, legal and administrative reform.

In this area the following projects have been identified:

- To continue support to the Armenia-EU Policy, Legal and Advice Centre (AEPLAC) to ensure smooth implementation of Armenia's international obligations.

- To support the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia in view of strengthening its capacity to manage effective legislative process.

In this area, a project will establish the principles of a Credit Guarantee Fund and will assist the small enterprises in the identification and the purchasing of needed equipment.

- Development of Infrastructure Networks.

In this area, the activity will concentrate in the energy sector. In view of developing local alternative sources of energy to be able to close down the Medzamor Nuclear Power plant, a project will strengthen the hydropower sector, through the rehabilitation of selected hydropower plants and feasibility studies for a new hydropower plant.

In addition, Armenia will benefit from participation in the Small Project Programmes, (Tempus - Policy and Legal advice - Statistics - Institution Building Partnership Programme).

Other Community funded actions of interest to Armenia are financed separately through the Inter-State Programmes (such as Traceca and Inogate).

Finally, the EU provided in 1998 an exceptional financial assistance to Armenia which amounted MECU 28 in the form of a single tranch loan facility and up to MECU 30 in the form of a grant to be disbursed in successive annual tranches from 1998 to 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0523/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Sponsorship of Council meetings in Sweden

The Swedish media have published reports concerning sponsorship agreements some already concluded others under negotiation to provide various services during Council meetings in the first half of 2001 in Sweden. There have been negotiations and agreements on everything from the provision of soft drinks and the arrangement of dinners to transport of various kinds.

Can the Council publish a list of the sponsors whose services have been engaged for all manner of things in connection with the Council's meetings in Sweden? Is any calculation available of the total financial value of the sponsorship agreements?

Reply

(31 May 2001)

The State holding the Presidency is responsible for organising all meetings, including informal ministerial meetings, held in the country of the Presidency.

As a result, only the Swedish Government is in a position to provide information on the organisation of these meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0565/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Insurance for DG Internal Market

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for the Internal Market provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1320/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Exclusion of private vocational training institutes from the operational programme for education and basic vocational training in Greece

The new operational programme for education and basic vocational training in Greece excludes private vocational training institutes from receiving EU funding for the programmes, which is contrary to previous proposals put forward by the Ministry of Education and the original agreements between that Ministry and the Commission to maintain open procedures in the award of contracts for basic vocational training. Furthermore, the exact opposite applies to the operational programme for further vocational training in which the competent bodies public and private vocational training institutes once certified, are eligible to submit offers to run programmes put out to tender by the responsible authority.

1. Why do different funding arrangements apply to basic and further vocational training when the circumstances are fundamentally the same?

2. In the Commission's view, do these provisions ensure competition between public and private vocational training institutes?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2001)

The Commission would like to point out that Community assistance is intended as support for or a contribution to national measures. The European Social Fund thus supports Member States' activities to develop the labour market and human resources.

It should also be noted, for the specific sector of vocational training in Greece, that the operational programme for education and basic vocational training provides for a study to be carried out, as part of the mid-term evaluation, on the conditions for the possible participation of private vocational training centres. According to the results of this study, the possibility of allowing private vocational training centres to participate in the programme's actions on the basis of open procedures will be examined in agreement with the Greek authorities.

Consequently, the new operational programme for education and basic vocational training, which was approved by the Commission on 14 March 2001, is in keeping with the spirit of the third Community support framework (CSF) and will contribute significantly to the Greek authorities' attempt to modernise the education system.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1183/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Human rights in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement

In January of this year the Commission President, Romano Prodi, went to Tunisia as part of a programme of visits which also took him to Algeria and Morocco.

Whilst in Tunisia, Mr Prodi held discussions with the country's authorities on topics such as emigration, human rights, the conflict in the Middle East and the situation in the Arab Maghreb Union.

Human rights in Tunisia are constantly being violated and during his visit, Mr Prodi had a meeting with the recently banned Tunisian League for the Protection of Human Rights. In the light of the above, could the Commission say what cooperation initiatives are being undertaken in Tunisia in connection with the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement?

Reply given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2001)

The Commission has always been concerned for human rights and civil liberties. As a result, and on principle, we consider any decision to restrict such freedoms to be regrettable.

The EU's partnership with Tunisia takes the form of a process of gradual integration. In this context, the Commission initially decided to give priority to the two positive instruments provided for by the Barcelona Declaration and the EU-Tunisia Association Agreement namely, political dialogue and funding programmes to promote human rights and civil liberties. Our aim is to see a lasting improvement in the field of human rights and freedom of expression.

More specifically, projects to support the media and strengthen civil society figure in the Commission's 2001 cooperation programme with Tunisia. Since the Association Agreement entered into force, we have also decided to make exhaustive use of all possibilities for dialogue at every level. We will therefore continue to intensify our political dialogue, and through it we will also address particular cases which may concern both sides.

The Commission believes that Tunisia has made considerable progress in terms of both economic health and social stability, and so ought to be ready to make a start on ambitious reforms in the field of civil liberties and political pluralism. It should also be ready to adopt practical affirmative measures, through which its ties with the Union may be strengthened, as it wishes. Indeed, it is impossible for any society to achieve its full potential without involving its citizens fully in the decision-making process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0591/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Burma

Is the Commission able to ascertain whether any Member State has taken any steps to implement the recommendations of the ILO Commission of Inquiry into forced labour in Burma?

Will the Commission consider asking all Member States to report back on how they intend to proceed?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Under the terms of the Resolution on Forced Labour in Burma/Myanmar adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 2000, which was confirmed by the ILO Governing Body in November 2000, the Director-General of the ILO was to report to the Governing Body in March 2001 on any actions taken by the ILO's constituents and by international organizations in response to the recommendations contained in the Resolution.

Requests for information to this effect were addressed by the Director-General of the ILO to both Member States and the Commission. The ILO recommendations which aim at the implementation by Burma/Myanmar of the recommendations of the ILO Commission of Inquiry on the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No 29) was consequently discussed in the concerned Council instances.

EU Member States and the Commission have replied on their own behalf to the request from the Director-General of the ILO for information regarding actions taken or envisaged in response to the recommendations contained in the Resolution. Some common elements to be included in the replies were agreed.

The information submitted by Member States, and by the Commission, was included in a report by the Director-General of the ILO to the Governing Body of the same organization during its 280th Session in March 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0854/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Taxation levels

Does the Commission believe that any Member State has such a high general level of taxation that a tax cut might increase revenue through incentive effects?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Although there is a theoretical possibility that high tax rates result in lower tax revenues and, that, therefore, a lowering of tax rates leads to increased fiscal revenues, there are no clear indications about the level tax rates have to reach in order to produce so-called Laffer-type effects(1).

In the joint report on The Contribution of Public Finances to Growth and Employment. Improving Quality and Sustainability, which was submitted to the European Council of Stockholm, the Commission and the Council, on the basis of the accumulated experience, affirmed that tax cuts are not fully self-financing, and need to be accompanied with spending reforms. The report considers that the necessary amount of expenditure reductions has to be gauged by the starting budgetary and cyclical economic position, while an appropriate balance also has to be drawn between cutting taxes and running down government debt and/or improving the long-term sustainability of public finances. In addition, the effects of tax reforms also depend on the degree to which tax cuts target supply side rigidities. In particular, where incentive effects are concerned, tax cuts targeted to highly distortionary taxes, such as those on labour, especially at the lower end of the wage scale, may lead to positive effects on investment, employment and growth in the long run, which may result in higher tax revenues, partially offsetting the negative effects of cutting rates.

(1) Laffer-type effects refer to the possibility that a cut in tax rates could lead to an increase (instead of, as expected, to a reduction) of tax revenues. However, in the real world, against what was suggested by Laffer, tax cuts are not self-financing. Other things equal, tax cuts lead to a reduction in tax revenues.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1880/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Austria)

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 Austria have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Austria 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?

Joint answer to 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 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.