ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2298/96 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Conclusions of the Council of 18 June 1996 on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

In its conclusions of 18 June 1996 the Council made the recommendation that the epidemiological monitoring of CJD (Creutzfeld-Jakob disease) should be extended to all Member States using the procedures already applied in five Member States.

Does this wording mean that Creutzfeld Jakob disease has been made a notifiable disease in all Member States of the European Union?

If not what steps does the Commission intend to take to introduce such a procedure?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1996)

On 14 May 1996, the Council recommended that the epidemiological surveillance of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) be extended to all Member States, on the basis of methods already developed in five Member States, with particular emphasis on devising common criteria for diagnosis of cases.

Notification of CJD may be either compulsory or voluntary, depending on the legal provisions of the Member State concerned. The Commission is keeping a watchful eye on the situation, while supporting the development and extension of epidemiological surveillance. Accordingly, in the context of Community research activities in the field of biomedicine and health, six research networks have been set up with the aim of reinforcing the surveillance of CJD and associated diseases, establishing comparisons between Member States and developing harmonized procedures for the identification and characterization of such diseases.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2181/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Invitation to tender by Commission Directorate-General V

On 14 February 1996 Commission Directorate-General V published an invitation to tender notice concerning information actions on the activities of DG V aimed at European citizens and health professionals under the programme on information consultancy - consultancy services on administrative matters and related services (96/C 42/10 and 42/11).

As a doctor and a professor at the Athens University Medical School, I am particularly sensitive to matters relating to public health. I would therefore ask the Commission to provide me with the following information:

1. Which companies tendered for Lot 1 (technical assistance office), Lot 2 (press conferences) and Lot 3 (organization of events and participation in exhibitions)?

2. What are the tenderers like from the point of view of quality and cost?

3. I would particularly like the decision adopted to be communicated to me together with the detailed reasons on which it was based.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 October 1996)

As regards lot 1, sub-lot 1A (technical assistance) has been withdrawn from this particular call for tender, and included under call for tender C140/12. Under that call it has been awarded to B& S (Worldcom Business and Syntagmes - Brussels). Submissions under sub-lots 1B (public health and safety at work bulletins) and 1C (descriptive documentation on Community measures) are currently under technical and financial evaluation, and will be presented to the Advisory committee on procurements and contracts (ACPC) in November 1996. The companies which have made submissions under these sub-lots are Sema group, B& S, Empirica, Cives, and Perrylux informatic.

As regards lots 2 and 3, submissions under these are also currently under technical and financial evaluation, and will be presented to the ACPC in November 1996. The companies which have made submissions under lot 2 (press conferences and press releases) are Sema group, B& S, Hill & Knowlton, Bold/Ogilvy/Mathers, Pinnacle, GCI Europe, and Anglia corporate marketing. The companies which have made submissions under lot 3 (publicity stand, conference organisation, promotional materials) are Sema Group, B& S, Bold/Ogilvy/Mathers, Anglia corporate marketing, Messecenter Henning, and Stadeco.

As submissions under these lots are currently under evaluation, the Commission is unable at this stage to give any final assessment of the quality of the bids, or to release precise information on their costs. However, it can be noted that the relative costs between bids vary by a ratio of up to 2.5 to 1. The Honourable Member will be aware that it is the role of the ACPC to ensure that the selection procedures and proposed contracts comply with the budgetary rules and the directives. The outcome of the procedure will be published in the official journal, as well as being notified individually to the companies concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2272/96 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (30 July 1996)

Subject: Foreign lecturers working in Italian universities

What progress can the Commission report to Parliament on this dossier and has the Commission received any information from the high level panel, chaired by Simone Veil, which is investigating this issue in the context of freedom of movement?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1996)

The high-level panel on freedom of movement for persons, chaired by Mrs Simone Veil, granted a hearing to a delegation of lecturers during its meeting in Florence on 24 June 1996. The lecturers' representatives were able to present their problems, in the presence of the Commission, and answer questions from the members of the panel.

At the end of the hearing Mrs Veil reminded the lecturers that the task of the high-level panel was not to resolve individual cases, but to propose general solutions to the problems associated with freedom of movement.

As the Commission noted in its reply to question 1092/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996. )), it has written to the Italian authorities to seek clarifications on the present situation and new professional classification of foreign language lecturers in Italian universities. In the light of the Italian authorities' response to these letters, the Commission will decide on the most appropriate course of action to take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2296/96 by Elmar Brok (PPE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Funding for the ERASMUS programme

1. Does the Commission have data on the trend in ERASMUS programme funding and the number of students given support since it was introduced?

2. Is it correct that since the beginning of the ERASMUS programme the level of grants has been falling constantly?

3. If so, can information be given on the amount by which the average ERASMUS grant has fallen?

4. In view of the funds available, is it still possible to achieve the goal of the ERASMUS programme, namely to encourage 10% of all European students to study abroad for at least one semester?

5. Is the Commission aware of the significance of the ERASMUS programme and the associated SOCRATES framework programme?

6. If so, will the Commission be able to maintain this position during the forthcoming revision of the budget for the SOCRATES and ERASMUS programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)

1. The Commission is directly transmitting to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat-General of the Parliament two tables concerning the budget allocated to Erasmus Action 2 (student mobility grants) and the number of students supported between 1988 and 1995.

2. As can be seen from the figures in Annex I, the level of Erasmus grants has been falling steadily since 1989 (except for 1992/93, when the EFTA countries entered the programme with a supplementary budget). This trend is due to a constant increase in demand based on a global budget that has remained more or less the same.

3. The average monthly grant at European level for approved mobility has fallen by approximately 50% since 1988. It was ECU 127 in 1988/89, but down to only ECU 67 in 1995/96.

4. Ensuring the mobility of 10% of European students is one of the general objectives of Community policy. However, the number of students that has to be supported to achieve this objective has been growing steadily, since the student population has also been rising apace. Even if the objective of 10% mobility can only be achieved in cooperation with the Member States, it is obvious that Erasmus cannot play its assigned part unless it is allocated the necessary resources.

5. - 6. The Commission is perfectly aware of the significance of the Socrates programme, one of whose cornerstones is the higher education chapter (Erasmus). However, when the programme was adopted the approved financial package fell considerably short of the amount considered necessary by the Commission to achieve the objectives in full. In compliance with the joint statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission ((OJ L 132, 16 June 1995. )) concerning the decision establishing the Socrates programme, the Commission has a clear mandate to submit proposals notably concerning the programme's funding. The Commission will submit proposals in this domain in the second half of 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1702/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (25 June 1996)

Subject: Maximum levels for pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables, cereals and foodstuffs

Council Directive 90/642/EEC ((OJ L 350, 14.12.1990, p. 71. )) of 27 November 1990, which establishes the maximum percentages of pesticide residues on and in certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, seeks to regulate the main ingredients of food through a more systematic approach than hitherto by establishing Community maximum residue levels.

Does the Commission not think that in general the procedure for adopting MRL by the Council is clearing impeding the application of the directives relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues? More specifically, no progress has been made so far on processed products of vegetable origin although the level of consumption of such products demands that there should be a harmonized provision providing a full guarantee for consumer health?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1700/96, E-1701/96 and E-1702/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

The Commission is aware of the need for the availability of adequate plant protection treatments for the cultivation of minor crops and has already taken certain initiatives to achieve this objective when establishing maximum pesticide residue levels. These measures, whilst maintaining a high level of consumer protection, allow for reduced residue trial data for certain minor crops with a low dietary intake and, where possible, for the extrapolation of data between crops.

The Commission can fully agree with the necessity for research and development in the field of plant protection. Considerable research investment is undertaken by the commercial operators involved in the plant protection industry. For its part, the Community deploys considerable resources in its research and technological (RTD) programme 'Fair'. This programme is currently dealing, inter alia, with the following topics:

- development of non-chemical or low-chemical methods (e.g. integrated crop management), mechanical equipment and techniques promoting practices which are more environmentally friendly and give greater protection to the environment (water, soil, landscape, etc.) to reduce contamination and erosion and increase production efficiency (including biological means of pest control and biotechnology);

- improvement of non-chemical (mechanical techniques, crop management, genetic resistance) and low-chemical and biological methods of crop protection (major and minor crops) and post-harvest treatment, in particular for the most harmful organisms;

- prediction of environmental fate of agrochemicals and effect on the environment and on human health.

Finally, in the framework of the 5th environment action programme ((COM(94) 453 final. )), the Commission is also sponsoring a project on the sustainable use of plant protection products in order to identify appropriate instruments whereby reduced use and impact of plant protection products on the environment may be achieved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2133/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (3 August 1996)

Subject: ADAPT Community initiative

Does the Commission feel that the ADAPT Community initiative has had a significant impact, and, in the light of the ADAPT experience, what improvements can be made to the Community's training and retraining policies?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

The Adapt Community initiative, with an overall budget of 3 200 MECU, is planned to consist of two consecutive 3 year waves of project activity, the first 1995-1997 and the second 1997-1999 (incorporating the additional information society priority agreed as part of the allocation of the reserve for the Community initiatives). The first wave of about 1450 projects has been underway since late 1995, and the call for applications for the second wave will be launched in January 1997.

It is therefore premature to make any assessment of the impact of Adapt, whether in relation to training or re-training policies or in relation to the many other policy areas which Adapt covers (e.g. anticipation of industrial change, work organisation, creation of new jobs). Activities so far under Adapt have been concerned to ensure, within the European social fund partnership, that the implementation arrangements are in place to ensure the success of the initiatve, in particular to support the development of innovative transnational project partnerships and provide a framework for analysing and mainstreaming the policy insights coming from the extensive project activity.

The Commission will be publishing a report on the implementation of Adapt and of objective 4 in autumn 1996. The first interim evaluation of Adapt will also be lauched in all Member States in autumn 1996 and will produce results in March 1997.

On the basis of monitoring activity so far, the Commission believes that activities under Adapt have generated new types of project activity and partnerships which will provide useful support and insights for those responsible for social, employment, and training policies related to those in work but whose employment is threatened, a target group which is new to the European social fund and which requires new approaches and relationships amongst the actors concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2020/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Involvement by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of EU Member States in development activities in the Republic of South Africa

In recent years the Commission has systematically refused European NGOs access to Community support for the activities they undertake in the Republic of South Africa.

Does the Commission intend to change its attitude as regards either the European programme for reconstruction and development in South Africa or access to the co-financing reserved for NGOs for development activities in South Africa?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

The Commission policy is based on full cooperation with European non governmental organizations (NGOs) and support for their projects eligible for funding from the general budget of the Community. In fact in 1994 the European special programme (budget line B7-5070, predecessor to budget line B7-3200, European programme for reconstruction and development (EPRD)) supported a project implemented by Médecins du monde.

In 1995 the Commission contributed 15 MECU to the Transitional national development trust (TNDT), an umbrella organisation established for channelling EPRD funds to NGOs, without specific reference either to South African or to European NGOs. European NGOs can therefore present their project proposals to the TNDT.

As far as the NGO cofinancing line (B7-6000) is concerned, European NGO projects have become eligible since the addition of South Africa to the list of developing countries by the Organization for economic co-operation and development earlier this year. This will become fully effective once NGOs are informed of the new situation.

In this connection, it should be remembered that the EPRD, financed out of the funds earmarked for South Africa, opens the way for significant and important involvement of South African NGOs, as well as other decentralised agents of development. Of the total funding in 1995, more than half benefitted NGOs in one way or another, (including decentralised agents and including the 15 MECU for TNDT mentioned above), or was managed with them playing a central role.

In view of this and of the overall important role already played by South African NGOs in the development of their country, the selection of European NGO applications for co-financing will focus in particular on those projects supporting the programmes and the institutional building of their South African partners.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2107/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Infringement of the ban on the export of British beef

It has been reported in the press that the German health authorities have complained that the ban on the sale of British beef imposed by the European Union is being violated. According to the Health Minister of the state of Hesse, it has been confirmed that animals slaughtered after the ban to combat 'mad cow disease' was imposed have been exported to France and Italy via Scotland and Ireland.

What information does the Commission have on these reports? What measures can be taken to prevent further infringements of the ban?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)

The Commission has been in contact with the authorities of the Member States concerned by reports of fraudulent movement of British beef and has asked them to investigate the allegations and take any appropriate measures. They have also been asked to report their findings to the Commission.

The Commission will continue to keep itself informed of progress in this matter, and will keep the Parliament informed of any developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2354/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: DG XI Legal Unit - handling of environmental complaints

Is DG XI Legal Unit using national experts to handle environmental complaints who have had direct experience of defending these complaints on behalf of their national government? Given that this would breach professional conduct rules on legal cases in many of the Member States, does the Commission agree that this is likely to compromise its ability to deal with these complaints objectively? What steps are being taken to correct this unacceptable situation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1996)

It is general Commission policy to use national experts to assist in particular tasks. Experts are chosen on the basis of their special expertise and the needs of the Commission.

In line with this policy, the Directorate general for environment, nuclear safety and civil protection uses national experts to assist its permanent staff. At the beginning of September 1996, there were three national experts seconded to the unit dealing with legal matters, legislation and application of Community law, as against sixteen other A grade staff.

The Commission ensures that no conflicts arise between the role of these experts and their former roles at national level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2246/96 by Jens-Peter Bonde (NI) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: School milk

At the present time, healthy milk products such as skimmed milk and buttermilk are not subsidized, whereas full cream milk, which has a higher fat content, receives a bigger subsidy than low-fat milk. Will the Commission submit a proposal for a flat-rate subsidy per litre of milk or, possibly, completely abolish the bureaucratic school milk system and leave subsidy schemes to the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

It is not, in the Commission's view, sound policy to pay a flat-rate amount per litre of milk for the full range of milk products distributed under the Community school milk programme, regardless of the composition, and hence the price, of the individual products.

The Commission believes the existing range of subsidized milk products is extensive and varied enough to form part of a healthy, varied and balanced diet for pupils.

The rules for implementation of the school milk programme were radically streamlined by the reform in 1993, which also gives Member States considerable leeway in the organization of their domestic schemes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1948/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: BSE

1. Is it true that the decision to relax the export ban was based on a non-impartial study by the gelatin industry?

2. Who drew up the study?

3. Who financed the study?

4. What is the Commission's view of the scandal that a study evidently financed by the industry as a favour was taken as the basis for the relaxation of the export ban without regard for the serious health implications?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1948/96 and E-1950/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)

Commission Decision 96/239/EC on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)SSSS ((OJ L 78, 28.3.1996. )) was taken as a safeguard measure in order to allow for re-evaluation of the situation. This Decision was based on the opinion of the scientific veterinary committee of 22 March 1996.

Commission Decision 96/362/EC ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996. )) amending Decision 96/239/EC was based on a scientific assessment that gelatin and tallow produced in accordance with the rules laid down in the Annex to the Decision, and semen, were considered safe. One of the most important criteria in assessing the safety of the gelatin is the sourcing of the raw material. In this respect, therefore, all tissues which have been shown to contain infectivity or could be contaminated with the infective agent (skull, vertebral column, brain, spinal cord, eye, tonsil, thymus, intestines and spleen) are excluded. The skin and bones which may be used in gelatin manufacture are classified as low risk tissues.

An interim report by Inveresk research international limited, an independent research laboratory, on the validation of the clearance of scrapie from the manufacturing process of gelatin (IRI Project No 851180) was another element used in the risk-assessment of gelatin. The study was financed by the gelatine manufacturers of Europe, an organisation with members throughout Europe.

As a result of the final report by Inveresk research international limited, which was presented to the Commission after Decision 96/362/EC had been adopted, the Commission has asked its scientific advisers to re-assess the safety of gelatin. However, other scientific evidence supports the thesis that chemical and heat treatments used in gelatin manufacturing will contribute to the inactivation of any agent which could be present. Further research on the inactivation of the BSE and scrapie agents in gelatin manufacture are under consideration.

Decision 96/362/EC requires that the export of gelatin from the United Kingdom will not take place until the Commission has carried out inspections and found the production to be in accordance with the Decision. This will not be implemented until the scientific advice is clarified.