ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2981/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Radioactive pollution from the Sellafield nuclear complex in Britain

The New Scientist (10 May 1997) gives details of a study tracking how radioactive pollution from Britain's nuclear complex at Sellafield has spread through the Arctic Ocean into the waters of northern Canada.

The study was led by Mike Brewers of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Halifax, Nova Scotia. It was prepared for a recent conference on radioactivity in the Arctic in Tromso, Norway.

One of the conference organizers, Per Strand of the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, has estimated that Sellafield has released 40 000 billion becquerels of caesium-137 into the environment. According to him, about 15 000 billion becquerels of that radioisotope have reached the Arctic. This would be two to three times higher than the contamination brought to the Arctic from Chernobyl via the Baltic and North Seas.

Has the Commission studied the data compiled on this matter? What action will it take to ensure that the radioactive pollution caused by Sellafield ceases?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (23 October 1997)

As part of its wider interests in the subject of exposure to radioactivity resulting from levels of environmental radioactivity, the Commission considers carefully the results of studies of the type to which the Honourable Member refers. While it is true that radioactivity from Sellafield discharges can be detected in the marine environment far from that site, this arises from the extremely high sensitivity of the measurement techniques available and does not imply any significant risk to man or the environment. On the contrary, even the most exposed population living close to Sellafield receives doses which are small compared with both the limits laid down in the current Community basic safety standards and the substantially reduced limits with which Member States will be required to comply by the year 2000.

The Community basic safety standards require that all exposures, including those arising from the operation of installations such as Sellafield, result in doses which are not only within the statutory limits but which are 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA) below these limits. This requirement is known as the ALARA principle. Enforcement of this principle has led to the continuing development and refinement of technology, and has resulted in as much as a 99% reduction in radioactivity discharged from Sellafield to the marine environment since the peak discharges in the 1970s. The activity now detectable in distant Canadian waters results from the peak discharge period. The success of the application of the ALARA principle is evident when it is considered that this major reduction in discharges took place over a period when the quantity of irradiated fuel being reprocessed was increased significantly.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2513/97 by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission (11 July 1997)

Subject: 'Enhancing the landscape of the middle Semois', a project submitted under the LIFE 1994 programme by the Walloon Rural Development Office (OWDR) for the municipality of Bouillon and the Walloon Region

As part of the LIFE 1994 programme, the OWDR submitted a project entitled 'enhancing the landscape of the middle Semois'. The implementation of this project would involve the redevelopment of areas of land in Frahan/Botassart with a view to enhancing the landscape of the valley floor by clearing the coniferous woods and reconstituting hay meadows. As such, this operation had been favourably received both by the local people and by members of the local rural development commission.

However, during the public inquiry on this land redevelopment project from 3 May to 3 June 1997, it transpired that the actual plan of work referred to the inquiry was utterly different from the aims and work described in the subsidy application submitted to the Commission under the LIFE scheme.

The figures speak for themselves:

- Original project submitted to the Commission - total amount: BEF 31 620 000, of which BEF 9 366 500 to be borne by LIFE, the amount to be spent on roadworks being BEF 7 400 000, of which BF 1 850 000 to be borne by LIFE;

- project submitted to the inquiry - total amount: BEF 34 333 000, of which BEF 25 883 000 are to be spent on roadworks and car parks. It is specified that the immediate priority is to be given to roadworks costing BEF 24 170 900, 60% of which are to be financed by the Walloon region, 30% by LIFE and 10% by the municipality. Finally, of the BEF 9 366 500 granted to this project by LIFE, BEF 7 251 270 (instead of BEF 1 850 000) would in fact be spent on roadworks, some of which are highly questionable from the environmental point of view.

Has the Commission given its agreement to the changes made to the original project? If so, why? If not, what measures does it intend to take to ensure compliance with the original aims of the project?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (15 September 1997)

On 7 July 1997 the recipient of the subsidy submitted a request for both the duration and financial plan of the project to be amended. As the information supplied was incomplete, the Commission met with the recipient.

It became clear that redistributing the funding would involve major modification of the original plan of work. The Commission therefore asked the recipient to submit a revised plan of work by the end of September 1997.

Once it has evaluated this, the Commission will decide whether the project is, firstly, still in line with the 1994 objectives, and then with the aims and procedures of the LIFE programme.

The Commission is well aware of the site's protected status. It will accordingly only support such activities as obtain the written approval of the commission for monuments and historic sites.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2681/97 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) and Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Council (1 September 1997)

Subject: Early retirement of a high official

1. Is it true that some months ago, the Council of Ministers forced a high-ranking official working in its Secretariat's language services to take early retirement on a substantial pension, because it had been discovered that in parallel to his job as an official, he owned a translation agency which was having some of its work done by translators from the Council's own language divisions?

2. If so, have enquiries been made to find out whether there were individuals who were covering up this illegal practice?

3. Have precautions been taken to ensure that the aforesaid former official does not continue to make use of translators who have any kind of working relationship with any of the Community institutions?

Answer (17 November 1997)

1. The Director of DGA III who was responsible among other things for the Translation Service in the General Secretariat of the Council was given early retirement at his own request on 30 April 1997 in accordance with the second indent of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities.

The monies paid to him when he took early retirement were due to him under the provisions of the Staff Regulations and the rules governing the settlement of holiday rights not taken before retirement.

2. and 3. The allegations referred to in the Honourable Members' question were the subject of an investigation which revealed a situation which is not quite the one referred to in the question but from which the Appointing Authority has drawn all the necessary conclusions in order to ensure that the provisions of the Staff Regulations on the rights and obligations of officials are scrupulously complied with and that the General Secretariat of the Council functions propertly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/97 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Travel insurance for EU citizens

Could the Commission comment on apparent discrimination against EU citizens when booking a holiday in the following instance?

Could the Commission give any information on possible plans to harmonize travel insurance?

A holiday was booked and paid for in the United Kingdom in advance, with the understanding that holiday insurance was included in the overall cost. When the papers arrived, non-UK nationals' names had been left off the names of those insured. Non-UK nationals were told they would have to take out separate insurance cover. Thus, having paid for insurance in the first instance, they had to pay for insurance again.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1997)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that Council Directive 84/641/EEC ((OJ L 339, 27.12.1984. This Directive was last amended by the Third Council Directive 92/49/EEC (OJ L 228, 11.8.1992) and European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EEC (OJ L 168, 18.7.1995). )) of 10 December 1984 amending, particularly as regards tourist assistance, the First Directive (72/239/EEC) on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance has already established provisions concerning the insurance of assistance for persons who get into difficulties while travelling, while away from home or while away from their permanent residence. Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours ((OJ L 158, 23.6.1990. )) is also relevant in this connection. Article 4(b)(iv) of that Directive specifies that the organiser and/or retailer must provide the consumer, in good time before the start of the journey, in writing or any other appropriate form, with information on the optional conclusion of an insurance policy to cover the cost of cancellation by the consumer or the cost of assistance, including repatriation, in the event of accident or illness.

As regards the situation described by the Honourable Member, which concerns the exclusion of non-UK nationals from holiday insurance cover, the Commission takes the view that this conduct probably reflects the commercial policy of the insurance company or travel agency through which the holiday was booked rather than discrimination on the grounds of nationality, for which a Member State would be responsible.

The Commission is not competent to rule on proceedings for breach of contract which may be instituted by consumers against the travel agency or insurance company. The domestic courts are competent to settle such matters and to determine whether amounts paid for holiday insurance cover which is included in the overall cost of a package but from which certain consumers are apparently excluded should be reimbursed. In that context, the requirement set out in the package tours Directive to provide consumers with appropriate information could be taken into consideration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2924/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Laboratory rodents

A recent report by Michael Festing of Britain's Medical Research Council's toxicology unit at the University of Leicester has shown how thousands of laboratory rodents are being sacrificed each year in toxicity tests which are scientifically flawed.

Has the Commission studied this report?

What proposals does the Commission have to phase out the use of animals in toxicity tests and to facilitate the development of alternatives to animal testing?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (23 October 1997)

The work to which the Honourable Member refers is well known. It shows that toxicology studies often involve the use of unnecessarily large numbers of animals, and sometimes produce data which are inadequately analysed because of the use of inappropriate statistical methods.

Through its European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM) of the Joint research centre (JRC), the Commission is coordinating the validation of alternative methods at Community level and a local point of information exchange about the state of the art of alternative methods is being built.

In addition, research into the development of in-vitro tests as alternatives to animal experiments has been one of the priorities for the various Community Biotechnology indirect action programmes for more than 10 years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2830/97 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Steps being taken in France against Dr Jean-François Viel

Is the Commission aware of steps being taken in France against Dr Jean-François Viel, alleging that his scientific studies on leukemia clusters at Cap La Hague are affecting property prices in the area? If this evidence on such a critical matter for cross-border public health and the environment is so strong as to be published in the British Medical Journal, surely the reprocessing plant itself should be immediately investigated by the Commission, rather than having the scientific reporting of facts undermined in this way?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1997)

The Commission is not aware of any steps against Dr Viel. Any such steps would be a matter to be dealt with under French law. The Commission would have no competence in such a matter.

As regards an investigation of the Cap de la Hague reprocessing plant by the Commission, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the reply it gave to written question P-2494/97 by M. Smith ((OJ C 60, 25.2.1998, p. 135. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2669/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Problems with the announcement of the Commission's Agenda 2000 programme

On 16 July 1997, the Commission announced to the European Parliament the Agenda 2000 programme, which contains opinions about the state of readiness of the individual applicant countries to enter into accession negotiations with the European Union. However, anyone who had been following the media would have known the substance of the opinions well in advance, as European news agencies, referring to Commission sources, had carried details of the assessment.

The leak from the Commission caused needless speculation, as well as raising doubts about the Commission's ability to carry out its information policy in the previously agreed manner and along predictable lines. The debacle with the publication of the assessment placed both the European Parliament as an institution and its individual members in an awkward position, as it was not possible to comment properly on the issue or to discuss it on the basis of advance information.

What will the Commission do to ascertain how and why detailed information about the opinions on the countries was leaked to the public prematurely, and how will the Commission in future prevent leaks from occurring on this scale?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1997)

The Commission was careful to present the Agenda 2000 programme ((COM(97) 2000. )) to the Parliament as soon as possible after adoption by the college in its meeting of 15 July 1997. Accordingly President Santer and Commissioner Van den Broek made detailed presentations in plenary session on 16 July 1997 and Parliament held a three hour debate.

The Honourable Member will appreciate that the volume and importance of the Commission's communications were unprecedented, and set important material challenges to the institution. The Commission was however able to distribute on 16 July 1997 to MEPs, other institutions, Member States, candidate countries and the press the documents 'Agenda 2000 volume I, for a wider stronger Union' (91 pages), 'Agenda 2000, volume II' (62 pages), the opinions on the applications for membership of the Union (some 1000 pages) as well as executive summaries and conclusions. Special arrangements had to be made for translating and printing night and day in Strasbourg, and special transport had to be organised between Brussels and Strasbourg.

While the Commission notes that some problems arose in the Agenda 2000 operation, it considers that on the whole it was brought to a successful conclusion. The Agenda 2000 communications were certainly given a favourable reception by the Parliament at its session on 16 July 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3141/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP

The Eurostat report on taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP for 1996 in the EU Member States, published in EUROPE No 7049 of 3 September 1997, does not include any statistics for Greece and Portugal. Were Greece and Portugal in fact included in the survey and, if not, what information does the Commission have concerning taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP in these two countries?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (3 November 1997)

The report mentioned by Europe No 7049 of 3 September 1997 is 'Statistics in Focus, Economy and Finance, No 28/1997, Taxes and Social Contributions in the European Union - First results for 1996'. The report contains figures on taxes and social contributions in percent of gross domestic product (GDP) since 1980 for all Member States, and analyses particularly the first provisional results for 1996. Figures published in the report are based on preliminary data from the Member States' statistical offices.

Greece and Portugal did not supply figures for 1996. Also, there is no Greek figure for 1995. Thus, the more recent figures for Greece and Portugal available in the report are concerning 1994 and 1995, respectively. The ratio of taxes and social contributions reached 31.8% of GDP in Greece in 1994, and amounted to 36.2% of GDP in Portugal in 1995.

According to the figures estimated by the Commission in the framework of its economic forecasts of spring 1997, the ratio of taxes and social contributions in percent of GDP in Greece has increased by about 1% point in 1995 and has remained stable in 1996. In Portugal, the ratio has increased by 1% point of GDP in 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2709/97 by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Impediment to free movement caused by health insurance deductions

Under the French rules on the health insurance deductions made by the Joint Regional Occupational Pension Fund (CRIREP), persons in receipt of a supplementary pension may not be exempted from social security deductions if they live outside France.

Community regulations, however, stipulate that persons living outside France are exempt from the 3.6% deduction when health insurance benefits are not chargeable to the French social security scheme.

Several national Members of Parliament have already raised this problem with the French Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, but the inconsistency has so far not been corrected.

Does not the situation in question constitute an obstacle to free movement of workers and pensioners?

What steps will the Commission take to resolve the matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1997)

The Commission is fully aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

It was for this reason that, pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty, it brought an action against France on the grounds that, by deducting sickness insurance contributions from both the supplementary pensions and the early retirement benefits of persons residing in a Member State other than France and whose sickness and maternity insurance is not covered by a French scheme, France has failed in its obligations under the EC Treaty and, in particular, infringed the provisions of Articles 13(1) and 33 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed workers and their families moving within the Community ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971. )).

This action was dismissed by the Court of Justice on the grounds that supplementary schemes do not constitute legislation within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71; consequently, Article 33 of the Regulation, which prohibits double contributions, does not apply to them. This ruling shows that a category of workers is inadequately protected by the Community social protection rules concerning persons moving within the Community. The Commission will very soon be proposing appropriate provisions to remedy this situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2359/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Gold mining in Western Turkey and EU participation

Highly toxic sodium cyanide is reported to be being used in Western Turkey (near the shores of the Aegean in the Bergama and Edremit area) to extract gold. In a resolution of 17 November 1994 (B4-0410/94 ((OJ C 341, 5.12.1994, p. 169. ))) the European Parliament spoke out against participation by European companies in this project. The following points were crucial: the collecting ponds for sodium cyanide mud would give off prussic acid in concentrations potentially fatal to humans. The region is also one of the most earthquake-prone in the world. There is a great danger of cyanide pollution of the ground water. A breach of the dam would have devastating consequences if the cyanide slurry spread over the adjacent fields.

The abovementioned resolution calls on the Commission, in paragraph 4, to investigate the ecological impact of the gold mining project; it also calls on the Member States and the Commission to take action to avert the threatened environmental disaster.

1. Has the Commission investigated the environmental impact of the project and what were the results?

2. What action has the Commission taken to avert an environmental disaster there, and what further action does it intend to take?

3. Is the Commission aware of the action taken by individual Member States to avert an environmental disaster? If so, what are they exactly?

4. How does the Commission view the fact that European companies are taking part in the project and using environmentally devastating processes in Turkey which are not permitted in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (15 September 1997)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question No 2232/92 submitted by Mr Alavanos ((OJ C 95, 5.4.1993. )).

The Commission will make every effort to obtain information on the installations to which the Honourable Member refers, which are situated in the Aegean Sea area. Since they are outside Community territory, Community Directives do not apply to them.

As part of the financial cooperation between the Community and Turkey, the Turkish authorities have submitted to the Commission a project on the assessment and monitoring of sea, ground and air pollution throughout Turkey's Mediterranean coastal area. However, because of the situation regarding financial cooperation with Turkey, the Commission cannot say whether such a project can be financed in 1997.