ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2007/99

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Council

(9 November 1999)

Subject: The fisheries sector and the Millennium Round

The communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EU approach to the WTO Millennium Round (COM(1999) 331 final) makes no specific mention either of fisheries or of the common fisheries policy. Meanwhile, the governments of Australia, the United States, the Philippines, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand and Peru have presented a communication to the WTO on subsidies to the fisheries sector which, should it become reality, would represent a serious threat to the common fisheries policy and the Community fishing industry.

The joint document, based on unsubstantiated assumptions which are not backed up by scientific data on zones and fleets, proposes that in the forthcoming WTO negotiations, members should agree to abolish subsidies which encourage over-capacity in the fisheries sector as they distort trade, are a particular threat to sustainable management of fish stocks and hinder sustainable development.

Given the fragile state of the Community fisheries sector and of areas dependent on fisheries, the Millennium Round could have serious consequences if the European Union does not mount a determined defence of our fishing industry.

What is the Council's position on the fisheries sector with a view to the Millennium Round?

What are the Council's views on the communication on fisheries subsidies presented by the above governments?

How does the Council intend to defend our fisheries sector at the third Ministerial Conference in Seattle?

Does it intend to draw attention to the social, environmental and health aspects of the fisheries sector, as well as the purely industrial considerations?

Answer

(24 January 2000)

1. The competent bodies of the Council have been informed of the communication on fisheries subsidies submitted by Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines and United States to the WTO General Council in the framework of the preparation of the Third WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in Seattle from 30 November to 3 December.

2. In its Conclusions of 26 October 1999 concerning the preparation of the Seattle Conference, the Council has made it clear that any decision on trade liberalisation will take due account of the compliance with the United Nations International Convention on the Law of the Sea and the objectives of International Agreements on environmental conservation and natural resources management and of International Fisheries Agreements. Furthermore, among the general objectives for the negotiations, the Council has stressed the need to ensure that an appropriate balance between the further liberalisation of trade and the strengthening of multilateral rules contributes towards sustainable development, environmental protection, social progress the reduction of poverty and consumer health.

3. The Council will follow closely the developments of the preparatory process for the Seattle meeting and will in particular meet in special session in Seattle throughout the duration of the Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2133/99

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Procedural time limits laid down for the allocation of resources to the new territorial employment pacts

On 9 June 1999 the ICEP (Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning) adopted Decision No 77/99 Allocation of resources for the financing of new territorial employment pacts, which lays down terms and procedures for obtaining financing for the implementation of projects targeted at production facilities.

One month later the decision was published in the Italian Official Journal of 5 August 1999 (General Series, No 182).

The decision provided for an enquiry period of four months, and therefore set a deadline of 10 October 1999, while the addressees only learnt of it at the time of publication, which was 5 August 1999, a month later, and hence had one month less in which to complete the enquiry stage.

The procedures for joining the territorial employment pacts are as follows:

- joining procedure by the public bodies,

- request for declaration of consistency from the CNEL (National Council for the Economy and Employment),

- ensuring publicity for the measures and programmes,

- evaluating the projects' advantages,

- carrying out the enquiry,

- publishing the findings,

It is clear that the delay in publishing the decision, which sets 10 October 1999 as the deadline for completion of the four-month enquiry period, has led to a discrepancy whereby the time available for the enquiry has been shortened.

In order to ensure that those concerned are able to benefit from the right to use the measure, will the Commission make serious representations to the Italian Government with a view to restoring the (minimum) four-month period laid down for the carrying out of the set procedure?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

The grant of funds for new territorial employment pacts in Italy, and the associated procedural deadlines, were decided under a national procedure adopted by the Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning. The Commission is therefore not competent to deal with the question raised, which is purely a matter for the national authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2331/99 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Council. Council resolution on the marketing of breast-milk substitutes.



Official Journal 219 E , 01/08/2000 P. 0149 - 0149



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2331/99 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Council (13 December 1999) Subject: Council resolution on the marketing of breast-milk substitutes Having regard to Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the marketing of breast-milk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers(1) and, in particular, to paragraph 2 and paragraph 5 thereof, could the Council please clarify the term competent authorities used in article 2? (1) OJ C 172, 8.7.1992, p. 1. Reply (14 February 2000) The term competent authorities used in paragraph 2 of the Council Resolution to which the Honourable Member refers relates to the competent authorities in the third countries concerned, which of course remain free to designate those authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2170/99

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Impact of the introduction of the euro on the early retirement scheme

Following the introduction of the euro this year, farmers in Ireland suffered a 5,055 % reduction in payments under the early retirement scheme. The Department of Agriculture has stated that full compensation will be payable for this reduction once it has received final approval from the Commission.

Can the Commission provide full details of the compensation that will be awarded and the categories of farmers in this scheme who will be eligible to receive it and state when the compensation scheme will be approved by the Commission and when compensation will be paid to farmers.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

The reduction in payments under the farm early retirement scheme in Ireland, resulting from the introduction of the Euro on 1 January 1999, will be compensated by the direct aid paid to Ireland in the framework of Commission Regulation (EC) No 755/1999 of 12 April 1999 fixing the maximum compensatory aid resulting from the rates for the conversion of the euro into national currency units and the exchange rates applicable on 1 and 3 January 1999(1).

The Irish proposals, in relation to the accompanying measures of the common agricultural policy (agri-environment and early retirement) affected by the transition to the euro in Ireland, were notified to the Commission on 2 November 1999. The proposals in question include compensation according to the maximum compensatory aid foreseen in the annex of the Commission Regulation.

At this stage the Commission is examining the Irish notification. This examination, under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture(2), is carried out in conformity with the procedure laid down in Article 88(3) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 98, 13.4.1999.

(2) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1938/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Payments for conversion to organic farming

Can the Commission detail the resources given over each of the past five years to enable farmers to convert from non-organic to organic farming?

Is the Commission prepared to increase the amounts payable, in the light of the fact that conversion leads to a drop of approximately 20 % in productivity, thus helping both to alleviate over-production and to improve quality?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside(1) promotes the use of farming practices which reduce the polluting effects of agriculture. The programmes launched by Member States also include aid for farmers who undertake to introduce or continue with organic farming methods. The aid granted to farmers is cofinanced by the Community at a level of 75 % in objective 1 areas and 50 % in non-objective 1 areas.

Depending on the economic situation of the organic sector compared to the conventional farming practices, Member States grant aid for the introduction of organic farming methods during the period of conversion or support as well as the continuation of organic farming. The financial data available does not differentiate between introduction and maintenance. Within the European agriculture and guiidance fund (EAGGF) budget granted for agri-environmental measures under Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 (which in 1998 was 1 727 million), about 8 % to 11 % are spent on organic farming.

As in the past, financial support for farmers is to be calculated on the basis of lost income and the additional expenditure generated by special environmental requirements. In the next financing period the upper ceilings on Community support for agri-environmental measures have been raised from those laid down for measures accompanying the 1992 reform to 600 per hectare for annual crops, 900 per hectare for perennial special crops and 450 for other forms of land use.

In addition the Community provides funding for a variety of investment aids for farmers in general either under Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures(2) or regional measures for diversification in objective 1, 2 and (5b) regions. The Commission does not have detailed information on the use of such aids by organic farmers.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1585/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Mackerel Box

In view of the fact that 30 000 tonnes of mackerel are caught in or around the South West Mackerel Box, does not the Commission feel it would be best for economic and vessel safety to allow this fish to be caught closer to the shore, with adequate safety being provided for the handliners who can be given their own area? Bearing in mind that 50 000 tonnes of juveniles per annum are caught off the West Coast of Ireland and that substantial tonnages are also caught by Scottish, Norwegian and Danish vessels, would the Commission consider providing a limited fishery closer to the shore in an amended Mackerel Box with no increase in tonnage, i.e. 30 000 tonnes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 1999)

The Council established the so-called mackerel box in 1983 as a measure to protect large concentrations of juvenile mackerel that occur in this area.

In 1992, the Commission's scientific and technical committee for fisheries evaluated the mackerel box and advised that the box should be maintained as it currently stands, although it was established that juvenile mackerel are now found over a wide area throughout western Community waters(1). It would appear therefore that the continuation of the present mackerel box would be the preferred way to protect juvenile mackerel.

In the revised technical measures regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms(2), that will become applicable as of 1 January 2000, the current mackerel box will be maintained essentially unaltered. In a nutshell, the provisions for the mackerel box stipulate that there shall be no directed fishery for mackerel in the area, with the exception of vessels fishing exclusively with gill nets or hand lines. Subject to these stipulations and to further technical provisions as regards fishing for mackerel, mackerel can be fished within the quantities of the national quotas established on a yearly basis for the stock of western mackerel.

It remains an established fact that a very large proportion of all the mackerel found around Cornwall, including in the mackerel box, is juvenile. Setting a definite quota of around 30 000 tonnes in this area would most likely imply an increase in the catch of juvenile mackerel, which is certainly not desirable from the point of view of conservation of fish stocks.

(1) SEC(92) 2347.

(2) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2269/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Dangers arising from the use of medical equipment made from PVC with a large DEHP content

Following the withdrawal of toys manufactured from PVC, Greenpeace has now drawn attention to the very frequent use in hospitals of medical equipment such as flasks containing blood, serum or nutrients for parenteral administration, made from the same substance with a DEHP content 800 times the admissible limit.

It is thought that this toxic substance may be carcinogenic and could affect fertility and damage foetuses. It causes irritation to the skin, eyes and respiratory system. Furthermore, on combustion in waste disposal plants, it releases dioxins.

1. Will the Commission examine these fresh allegations by Greenpeace?

2. What measures will it take to limit the use of PVC as described above?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Products such as bloodbags, perfusion sets and gastrointestinal tubing are manufactured using soft PVC, i.e. PVC containing phthalates, and are covered by Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning safety requirements for medical devices(1). The manufacturer must ensure that the devices meet all appropriate requirements and in particular perform a risk/ benefit analysis and evaluate the biocompatibility and toxicity of the materials used. Furthermore, the products mentioned are subject to a third party evaluation to verify their conformity with the directive. Indeed it should be stressed that the situation for medical devices is not equivalent to that for other products such as toys.

The soft PVC used for medical devices is the subject of several standards and pharmocopia monographs used by manufacturers when selecting and testing their materials.

The Commission has, within the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993, on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(2), launched several years ago a comprehensive risk assessment of diethyl hexyl phthalate (DEHP). The risk assessment is expected to be finalised in the first half of 2000, and will, among other aspects, cover the use of DEHP in medical applications.

On the basis of the risk assessment, the Commission will, if appropriate, issue a recommendation for a risk reduction strategy, which will form the basis for Community measures proposed in the framework of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations(3) or in the framework of other relevant existing Community legislative instruments.

(1) OJ L 125, 19.5.1999 (corrigendum).

(2) OJ L 224, 3.9.1993 (corrigendum).

(3) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2033/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council. Detainee Thet Win Aung.



Official Journal 203 E , 18/07/2000 P. 0120 - 0120



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2033/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council (11 November 1999) Subject: Detainee Thet Win Aung Has the Council made representations to Burma with regard to the case of Thet Win Aung whom Amnesty International have identified as a Prisoner of Conscience? If not, will the Council do so? Answer (24 January 2000) The Council has not so far raised the specific case of Thet Win Aung, but it has repeatedly called on the Burmese regime to free all political prisoners and take early and concrete steps towards respect for human rights, the promotion of democracy and national reconciliation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2512/99

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Projects selected under the Culture 2000 programme

The Commission has selected 55 cultural projects under the Culture 2000 programme, for which over 6 million euros will be made available. Do any of those 55 projects relate to the year 2000 cultural capitals?

Of the experimental initiatives selected, five are projects to be implemented in Spain. What are those five projects and has any of them anything to do with Santiago de Compostela?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

With regard to Community cultural programmes, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that its objective is not to allocate specific aid to one Member State or another but to encourage cultural cooperation by supporting in particular projects which have a European dimension and are carried out under partnership arrangements.

The Commission received 410 applications in response to its call for applications for experimental measures under the framework programme in support of culture published in the Official Journal(1). The Commission selected 55 of these, following consultation of a committee of independent experts representing several cultural disciplines.

Only one of these projects relates to the European Cities of Culture. This is the Hotel Europa project, whose main organiser is Intercult Production (Sweden) and co-organisers are the following associations: Association de Gestion du Festival d'Avignon, Bologna 2000, Verein Wiener Festwoche and Rotterdam 2001.

Four of the projects selected are organised mainly by a Spanish body: Electronic Map of European Venues, Pain a multidisciplinary and intercultural thematic study, Globalisation and cultural identity, and Argonauts 2000.

None of these projects has anything to do with Santiago de Compostela, which under the Raphael programme received funding (under the heading of European laboratories) of EUR 150 000 in 1999 and EUR 175 000 in 1998. Furthermore, in 1997, 1996, 1995, and 1994, Santiago de Compostela received funding (under the heading of symbolic projects) of ECU 200 000 per year.

(1) OJ C 163, 10.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1730/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Export of cattle to third countries

How many live cattle were exported from the EU to third countries in 1998, and how much was paid out in export refunds for live cattle exports to third countries in the period 16 October 1997 to 15 October 1998?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 1999)

In 1998 the Community exported 266 256 live cattle to third countries. For the budget year 1998, 16 October 1997 to 15 October 1998, 93,5 million was granted in export subsidies for live cattle.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2578/99

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: German government aid to a building concern

The German federal government is clearly giving significant economic aid to a major building concern (Holzmann) to rescue it from having to go into liquidation. Does the Commission consider that the German government's action is compatible with EU competition law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The German government has recently notified the proposed aid. The Honourable Member can be assured that the case is being carefully scrutinised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2120/99

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 November 1999)

Subject: Representation of women on committees

It is difficult for Members of the European Parliament and the public to obtain information about the advisory, management and regulatory committees which assist the Commission with the implementation of European Union legislation under the commitology procedure. These committees, of which there are probably more than 450, mainly comprise representatives appointed by the Member States.

In its reply to my written question E-1466/99(1), the Commission has stated that the Member States appoint the committee members, leaving the Commission no power to intervene.

Can the Council indicate the composition of the committees and their breakdown by sex? What proportion of the members of all committees formed by the national authorities are women?

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 81.

Reply

(31 January 2000)

The committees referred to by the Honourable Member are those provided for by Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(1). That Decision replaced Council Decision 87/373/EEC of 13 July 1987(2).

As indicated in the two Decisions referred to, these committees are made up of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by a representative of the Commission, which also provides the secretariat.

The Council is not represented in the committees concerned. It therefore cannot provide the Honourable Member with the information requested. Moreover, the Member States frequently send different people to attend these committees so that it is not possible to give a reliable indication of the respective numbers of men and women making up the committees.

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

(2) OJ L 197, 18.7.1987, p. 33.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1936/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Reduced rate of VAT for catering services.



Official Journal 203 E , 18/07/2000 P. 0091 - 0091



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1936/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council (4 November 1999) Subject: Reduced rate of VAT for catering services At the extraordinary Ecofin Council held in September 1999, Member States' Ministers discussed the list of services which would be eligible for a reduced rate of VAT. That list which will apply from 1 January 2000 contained proposals to include catering services, though these did not gain general approval. As the catering sector is important to countries with a developed tourist industry, will the Council say whether it will include that sector on the list of services to which a reduced rate of VAT may be applied and, if not, why not? Answer (24 January 2000) The Council would remind the Honourable Member that when the Directive on the possibility of applying on an experimental basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services was adopted, the Council noted a Commission statement whereby the Commission undertook to examine in a positive spirit a request from Portugal to apply a reduced rate of VAT to catering services.